UKC

Despite there being no evidence of who actually killed the three teenagers in the Occupied Territories, yet again Israel siezes any opportunity to bomb the hell out of the Palestinians

34 airstrikes, proportionate response on no evidence?

Wonder how much they're paying ISIS?

In reply to woolsack:

How much who is paying ISIS?

In reply to TobyA:

Shimano?

In reply to woolsack:

are they still fighting in that stupid patch of the world?
will it ever end?

In reply to woolsack:

Kaiser Sozie..?

In reply to woolsack:

Your ignorance or prejudice shows. The bombing in gaza is in response to many days of missiles and mortars aimed at civilian areas in south Israel from gaza.
The operation around Hebron was more a police action with Palestinian authority assistance to find the kids, and now to find the killers since they were apparently killed in cold blood soon after the kidnapping.

Israel has a perfect right to secure its citizens.

In reply to MikeTS:
Correct. Israel is just thinking about what extra judicial action to take

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28109734

No doubt in a few days a few random Palastian houses will be bulldozed or something. That will make things better.

In reply to MikeTS:


I think history has proven quite conclusively that Israel is nothing more than a bully.

It's a pity that no one can do anything to change their deplorable behavior. Local countries can't do shit because they are outgunned due to American arms and military support, similarly the UN/EU are screwed because they are too cowardly to stand against the US.

How anyone could support them when they treat the Palestinians (not to mention the rest of the world) the way they do is mind boggling.

In reply to woolsack:

I think you will find the air strikes are a reasonable retaliation for the hail of missiles fired into Israeli territory by the Palestinians in the past few days. I don't think they have yet decided how to retaliate for the murder of the three teens.

But sure as hell they will!

In reply to Removed User: Some children have been killed in cold blood. How about leaving the clichés aside for a moment.

Terrible as the deaths of the young men are , the classic Israeli tactics of disproportionate response are being put into action as usual .
5 Palestinians have been shot dead in altercations over the search operations , the homes of the 'hamas suspects' have been blown up in some kind of punitive action and 500 people have been arrested . The Israeli Defence Minister stated "We have to say it very clear if you kill innocent children on the way back from school, you cannot continue to work with us as usual," .
This oozes hypocrisy , as over 1500 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli military action since the year 2000 , compared to 129 Israelis .
Not for a moment do I support the violent activities from either side , it just irritates me intensely that the media are so pro Israel , telling the one sided story as usual .

In reply to SethChili:

Where did you get those numbers from ?
Just curious, have you checked how many iraqi and afghan children were killed by the uk army since 2001,in response to an attack in another country?
No you havent...

In reply to woolsack:
No evidence huh? Three bodies in a hole goid enough evidence for you sherlock?
What are you bored or something? You know how many people are killed daily in Iraq and syria for nothing?

In reply to Dror1:

Interesting post history you have there.

In reply to Dror1:

Total 21 000 civilian casualties in total for Afghanistan , although this could be attributed to many ISAF nations and not just the UK . I maintain an ongoing interest in conflicts in the middle east , so yes , I had checked them before .
However this is a shortsighted comparison . According to the united nations '' the vast majority of the incidents resulted from attacks with improvised explosive devices (399 child casualties) and suicide attacks, including by child suicide bombers (110 child casualties)'' . Therefore , the majority were killed by militants/terrorists/freedom fighters/ whatever you want to call them from their own country . The figures for Palestine were from Defence for Children International Palestine .
The point is that the vast majority of child casualties in Palestine have been caused by air strikes on civilian areas and indiscriminate application of firepower by the IDF .

In reply to Dror1:


Killed by whom? Brave Jihadist freedom fighters sending children and people with severe learning difficulties in to markets as suicide bombers?

In reply to NathanP:


Oh please, I don't agree with the guy you quoted but it's ridiculous that this keeps getting trotted out. It's happened like twice in a dozen years, it's not like it's an every day occurance. Enough atrocities occur without resorting to exaggerated propaganda in the form of 'protect teh childrens!'.

In reply to woolsack:




For you, Herr Wooly, 'No Jews' means No News!

In reply to Removed User:
And your point is? That your a creepy dude?

In reply to SethChili:

Yeah, you know you cant go in to gaza and arrest people, it isnt central london. Plus the government said itself that the reactions were part of a crackdown on hamas in hebron, not only searchibg for the kidnapped victims. Bombing empty buildings is not bombing civilians. Had they bombed civilians, 24 airstrikes with modern weapons would have killed thousands.

In reply to Removed User:


From what I have read using children, people with learning difficulties and mental illnesses as suicide bombers seems rather more common that twice in a dozen years. From a quick search:
http://disability.about.com/od/LatestPoliticalStorylines/a/Using-The-Disabl...
http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/national/31-Jan-2009/failed-british-suici...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bomber
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/06/24/They-must-be-battleready-L...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/03/afghanistan-child-suicide-bomb...

But I agree that is secondary to the atrocity of the far larger numbers of innocent civilians who are deliberately targeted by the Jihadists for being ‘the wrong sort of Moslems’. In spite of this, the extremists have succeeded in creating a widely accepted narrative that "the West" is attacking Moslems and indiscriminately killing thousands of civilians. It irritates me intensely then when people post things like: "have you checked how many iraqi and afghan children were killed by the uk army since 2001” as though accepting the extremists version of reality.

But the whole of this is way off topic and I shouldn’t have bitten.

In reply to Dror1:

I think the point stands for itself tbh.

In reply to dek:



The irony of you suggesting I am a Nazi. It isn't my 'mob' that are carrying out what is effectively a program of ethnic cleansing is it?

In reply to Removed User:


There used to be a Dror who posted on Israel/Palestine subjects a few years ago but was banned for going OTT on threads and emailing threats to several people who disagreed with him. Looks like the same guy.

In reply to TobyA:


Of course you have heard of the Yinon Plan. This is exactly the outcome that suits Israel best, Arab nations bickering amongst themselves.

In reply to Removed User:

Yep, same guy.
Btw dont forget to mention the antisemitic posts that were freely going on here. Yes, i guess i didnt react very well at the time for being called all kind of things.

In reply to Dror1:

Presumably, on the same basis, you would now be supportive of Hamas or similar destroying a few "empty buildings" in Israel?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28124329

In reply to woolsack:
I suggest everyone drop the word nazi from the thread.
And as to ethnic cleansing, do check demographic figures since 1948, both of palestinians, and arabs who are israeli citizens. Your claim is unsupported by the numbers.

In reply to Dror1:


If these forums tolerated anti-semitism I wouldn't be here so I must have missed all that.

>Yes, i guess i didnt react very well at the time for being called all kind of things.

Or being disagreed with.

In reply to Dror1:

Are you really trotting out the old knee jerk cliche of:

"Anti State of Isreal policies = Anti Sematism, (so you aren't aloud to critiscise us)"

In reply to Removed User:

i have absolutely no problem with being disagreed with. you can even ask bruce about that...

In reply to GrahamD:



first of all its spelled antisemitism.
and no, disagreeing with israels policies does not always amount to a hatred of jews. (or i would be hating myself), however it sometimes does amount to that.

In reply to GrahamD:

Perhaps he's one of Israel's pro-social media drones.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/14/israel-pay-students-propaganda_n...

yeah, ukc is THE place for propoganda. good way to spend the taxpayers money huh ?

and sadly im not a student anymore, just a crappy researcher

In reply to Dror1:


... and in the context of this thread ? Have you read anything at all that is anti Jewish ? even slightly ? if not stop bringing up that red herring and concentrate on the actions and policies of the state of Isreal.

In reply to woolsack:

I hadn't so I've been reading up on it. It's interesting that when you google "Yinon Plan" the first pages of results are all to anti-Israeli websites, including dubious antisemitic far left (Global Research) and far-right (David Duke) sites.

So a journal article written for a rabid NGO in 1982 is now coming to fruition 32 years later is it? Do you not see how an obsession with secret Jewish plans to control the world just an incy-wincy bit plays into all the classic antisemitic tropes? Where are we - Odessa in 1905? This is like all the Islamophobes who can't stop going on about the Muslim Brotherhood document that turned up in Switzerland being the blueprint for the Muslim takeover of Europe despite all the evidence to the contrary.

There is something very deeply creepy about this kind of obsession with Israel and Jews. By giving them superhuman powers to manipulate the world around them it also suggests that the psycopaths of ISIS have no agency; that they aren't really responsible for the murdering and maiming they are doing - that's Israel. It's really a double racism that with jews being so clever and conniving, that the Arabs (and all of their non-Arab muslim shocktroopers killing and pillaging their way through Syria and Iraq) are stupid and manipulable.

The Israeli government looks to me like most other governments; they respond to events, dear boy, events. Often they respond stupidly or cruelly or only thinking about eeking out a few more votes domestically and not caring a jot about the foreigners who don't get a vote. If they are really working to cunning duplicitous plan to break up the surrounding states on ethnic grounds, a plan drawn up in 1982, they're kind of shit at it aren't they? I mean it took them over 20 years to manipulate the US into doing that in Iraq for them. Perhaps they should have just stuck with the protocols of the elders of zion, rather than changing the masterplan in the early 80s.

But I know I'm not gonna do anything to change your mind on these issue, so on we go...

In reply to woolsack:

And just for clarity, you are saying that Israel is funding ISIS are you?

In reply to TobyA:


And presumably, by extension, with the agreement of the USA?

In reply to GrahamD:


no, i have not reading anything of the sort on this thread.
the actions currently of israel as i understand them should be viewed in a broader context. hamas and the PA created a unity government. that puts israel in a dillema. should israel hold the PA responsible for acts such as the kidnapping and murder?
Well, the head of the PA came out with a statement against the kidnappings.
plus both the PA and israel have a common interest in security arrangements and against hamas.
in an even wider context the region is extremely unstable, syria, iraq, iran, etc... so israel would not want to fight on several fronts, which might happen should ISIS take control of syria. therefore israel would like hamas to remain in power in gaza where it can be held accountable, while dismantling it in the west bank.

In reply to tony:

Well, I'm not sure. At least sometimes the Israel/Jews at the centre of everything worldview sees the US as also being 'played'.

I've now read through what I'll presume is an accurate translation of the essay from 82 (at least I doubt Global Research or David Duke read it in the original Hebrew), and Yinon seems to see the US as weak and likely to be defeated by the USSR. Perhaps understandable in 82 before Regan got on a roll, but its only one of many ideas in the essay that Yinon was totally wrong about.

Woolsack have you actually read "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"? Or just commentary on it? I'm reading this version - http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html#21n its a bit confusingly laid out; but if I have read it correctly the conclusion at the end is the translators critical comments on the text, and he also writes the introduction above the title of the essay.

In reply to tony and Toby:


It does all seem rather convenient for Israel doesn't it? Doesn't it always in fact? What is that Mossad motto?

On a scale of rabidity, most of the right wing Israeli politicians score pretty highly.
Toby, I did read 'A Strategy for the Nineteen Eighties' a while ago but I'll have another read in the light of your comments

In reply to NathanP:


And doesn't in anyway justify state terrorism by Israel.

In reply to tony:


For those who haven't read Global Research, it is not anti-semitic. Really Toby you just can't stop bringing out whoppers, can you? You don't have to defend Israel every time, leave that to Dror or MikeTS, at least they are Israelis so have a stake.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Fine, if you don't think so, lets say it's not. What we do know is that every time you link an article on GR, it has simple factual errors like last time where the writer couldn't even check which countries are in NATO or have US forces based there (Belarus - lolz). So it is not antisemitic, it is just a blog for angry and not very clever and/or careful ranty bloggers who see Israel at the centre of everything bad.

Meanwhile, when I googled the Yinon Plan - as Woolsack mentioned, the first thing that came up explaining how this 32 year old screed was secretly the masterplan for Jewish domination of the middle east was an article on GR. Funny that.

I read this funny little piece on GR last night, by Paul Joseph Watson, http://www.globalresearch.ca/huffington-post-suggests-talking-about-media-o... A paean to UKIP, the party where just about every member except the leader can't seem to not say racist things once in a while, I was tickled by the the bit about the EU a Nazi plot. Plots, conspiracies, intrigues, cabals! Help! They're everywhere!!! Bildeberg, blah blah blah - global banking and media elites! Nay, a "cabal"! Odd that a Hebrew word is so popular for the target of these theories isn't it? Mr Watson is best chums with the ever delightful Alex Jones, who isn't antisemitic, just mad. But, anyway, Chossudovsky has always shown that as long as you rant about the US or Israel, you can publish any old bollocks on his site - there is clearly a market for it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I dont really care about defending israel.. Most of my posts were in reaction to weird claims by you and others over the years, like ethnic cleansing and such. Having lived there for over thirty years the simple contrast to reality made me post .

In reply to TobyA:

So it would be more accurate to say it's a blog site open to all sorts of people, some of whom are a bit over the top, which is a little different to just dismissing it as being an anti-semitic site.

In reply to Dror1:

I don't see how you can deny that ethnic cleaning has taken place in Palestine, or in Israel as you call it. At the latter part of the 19th century Jews made up 4 to 5% of the population now they dominate the place, refer to it as a "Jewish state" and have reduced the indigenous part of the population to a struggling minority with few rights and totally at the mercy of the Jewish part of the population. It's hard to think of a clearer example of ethnic cleaning.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


hmmm.. ethnic cleansing, lets see.. third reich, rwanda, darfur, bosnia ring any bells ?
so maybe you should define ethnic cleansing in a better way first?

In reply to Dror1:
From Wiki:
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history. The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), as well as mass murder, and intimidation."

That seems to fit, wouldn't you say?

In reply to Dror1:

Is it not the case that through the illegal settlement programme in the West Bank, Israel is doing all it can to remove Palestinians from the West Bank?

In reply to MG:




sounds like a reasonable definition. seems to fit what ? israels actions ? no , i wouldnt say that fits it at all

In reply to tony:


no, i would not say that.
i would say that settlements there cause problems and misery.
some of them employ palestinians in factories and have in general good relations with their neighbors, others uproot olive trees and cause problems. But i wouldnt say they are removing palestinians from the west bank, rather creating a bad , crowded and tense situation.

In reply to Dror1:


There's a shocker.

In reply to MikeTS:


how many civilians in israel?

In reply to Dror1:

Well for starters what about the 700,000 Arabs (80% of the population) who were forced to flee Israel in 1947-8 (and have been refused a right to return) and the 3 million Jews who have immigrated to Israel in the last 50 or so years? That fits the definition given. This is before we get into settlers.

In reply to woolsack:

The chances of there being peace in the Middle East any time soon is pie in the sky. A good start would be for Israel to abide by the numerous UN resolutions brought against them.

In reply to woolsack:

And while we are about it the Israelis should abide by the International Court of Justice in The Hague's ruling noted here.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11292&#.U7VtIBm9KK0

In reply to MG:

I think once again that where things get weird is when Israel is continually singled out as something particularly or especially bad - or in someway unique. There is no denying the history of the foundation of Israel and the gross injustices that resulted for so many from the Nakba in '48. Many Arabs fled their homes, but many didn't which is why Israel has lots of Palestinian citizens now. If that was ethnic cleansing, they weren't very good at it or at least have much lower standards of 'ethnic cleanliness' than other nations have shown. If I remember correctly, the actual level of violence and death came nowhere close to that resulting from the partition of India around the same time. That doesn't make Israel better or worse than, say, India - rather it means that there is nothing uniquely bad about it. It's the exceptionalism that some critics treat Israel with that so easily drops into the old European antisemitic tropes of Jewish cabals running the world. That's exactly what I saw when I looked up the plan mentioned by Woolsack.

Likewise, the settlements in West Bank are illegal, immoral, environmentally damaging and even if the Israel government doesn't give a crap about non-Israelis - detrimental to the state of Israel internationally. The settlers are continually pushing to control more land and deprive Palestinians of more of the useful agricultural areas and the like, but you just have to look at the UN maps to see once again it is still far from 'ethnically cleansing' the West Bank. The Palestinian population is growing not shrinking, which is why outsiders are saying to the Israeli government that it either needs to reach a two state solution with the PA, before Palestinians demand one state in which they will be the majority, or make Israel become an apartheid state.

In reply to TobyA:


Is that because they are supposed to be a civilised modern democracy and not some chaotic African republic? If you are a first world democracy you just don't behave like that

Isn't Israel the only surviving apartheid state?

In reply to TobyA:
Well I wasn't saying Israel was unique or particularly bad but since this is a thread about Israel it makes sense to talk about Israel rather than the Indian partition or Darfur or the Congo or any number of other horrors. I think Israel's history can reasonably be taken to include "ethnic cleansing", even if they don't insist on full starch and ironing in their laundry.

Why Israel provokes such concern and interest is an interesting question. I think it is a combination of proximity, western involvement (current and historical), the effect it has on other geo-politics, its claims to being a full democracy, the long-term intractability of the problems and, like it or not, the rather obvious comparisons which can be made between the treatment Jews have had historically (not just in the holocaust) and Israeli treatment of their neighbours.

In reply to MG:


As TobyA says, people flee in wars, not always forced to at gunpoint. my grandparents fled germany. do i go around germany now looking for a flat i can claim my own ? no.
maybe not the best example, but the grandchildren of palestinians from 48 , have been treated quite bad in various arab countries, i would say much worse than arabs are treated in israel. so obviously they go back to 48 to blaim someone for their current situation.
of course israel should take some of the responsibility , but to say it should accomodate millions of people whose grandparents were refugees, i would say no in principle, and not realistic.
you may have your own opinion.

In reply to MG:



- yes, its all very easy to live in the EU where you havent had a major war in 70 years, and criticize a country for human rights in one of the most hostile and barbaric regions in the world. (not only for jews if you read the news these days, ISIS etc..). so if your comparing israel to western countries, perhaps do so in relation to countries in similar situations if you can find any ?

In reply to Dror1:

Most of your post is irrelevant to the question of ethnic cleansing but if you are claiming 80% of the population of Israel left voluntarily and without any intention for this to happen on behalf of the Israelis, I think you are bonkers.

In reply to Dror1:

perhaps do so in relation to countries in similar situations if you can find any ?

South Korea seems to manage without bulldozing the houses of residents and near residents despite x million troops on its border. US/Mexico. Morocco/neighbours. Take your pick

In reply to MG:


Your knowledge of the Arab jew conflict Is rather lacking.
'Who' told the Palestinian Arabs to flee?

In reply to MG:

Nope, you weren't saying it - I'm just interested in how some Western criticism of Israel (left and right) so easily slips in to these ancient antisemitic patterns. It just really struck me again when I googled the Yinon plan.


I agree with pretty much all of that, but would add a strong does of antisemitism that remains in many places is also a factor. It's a bizarre thing because it seems almost genetic - it just seems to bubble up in the weirdest of places.

I think it's just obvious that you can criticize the Israeli government, or even the state of Israel, without being antisemitic, but equally ardent critics of Israel should also accept that there is plenty of criticism of Israel that is antisemitic. I see it a bit like criticism of Islam we hear in the UK/Europe. Of course you can criticise Islam without being racist, but that doesn't mean that all who do criticize Islam aren't racist.

In reply to MG:


- in fact that is a question that has not be solved by academics, historians, etc.. as i understand it, (and i was not there, neither were you..) some parts of the population fled out of fear of what may happen, and being encouraged to leave by arab leaders (as in haifa), others as i have seen on docos, were forced to leave at gunpoint. what are the percentage of these and those, havent a clue. and i wouldnt listen to anyone here who claims they know reliable analytics.

In reply to MG:



morroco , if you checked, wouldnt score high in human rights.
but anyway i dont think any of your examples are good comparisions.
South Korea, well the north are not another ethnicity, and the border between them is well defined, they dont mingle in the same physical space.
US/Mexico - again the only problem there is illegal immigration and drug problems, havent heard of any mexican groups vowing to kill all americans , or drive them in to the sea.

In reply to MG:


That's a very bad pick considering Morocco's treatment of the Saharwi's is probably one of the closest analogies to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the treatment of the Palestinians. The biggest difference seems to be beyond the UN's tiny agency to look after the refugees, no one gives a shite about West Sahara. :-/

A good recent article on it here http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/25/nowhere_land_western_sahar...

In reply to dek:


I'll admit it's based on a cursory reading and stories from my grandfather who was there trying to keep arabs and jews apart (he wasn't impressed by either side). Which bit are you disputing?


A combination of orders, threats, and implied threats from various quarters.

In reply to Dror1:

I'm not sure what you point is. If you are arguing Israel should be allowed to defend its borders, I agree, and understand that given surrounding countries, this defence will sometimes be violent. If you are arguing that the endless settlements, collective punishments, and other mis-treatments of particularly Palestinians are justified because Israel has unpleasant neighbours, I disagree.

In reply to MG:



Well that's rather ambiguous. ..Do you mean threats, and orders from Jews or Arabs?
What's your opinion of the near 1 million Jews ' cleansed' from Arab Muslim countries, now in israel.Where should 'They' have gone?

In reply to MG:


On the contrary, i think the sooner an israeli government and the pa reach permanent agreements the easier it will be to defend the country and safer for everyone. I certainly dont claim the second point.

In reply to TobyA:


You could say the same about Hitler, he didn't kill all the Jews... all in all that is one of the shittiest arguments I've heard in favour of Israel for quite a while.

In reply to Dror1:


That's not what is being said, it wouldn't be Israel accommodating them they would return to a liberated Palestine, it's you who will have to leave. It's going to happen one day, the sensible thing to do is not to wait, get out now.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Aye, and 10.000+ children slaughtered so far, in nearby Syria, along with 'palestinians' starved to death in camps by their Muslim brothers.....no Jews involved....The world yawns.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Heh, i see you havent changed, at some point in the thread you lose it as usual...

In reply to dek:




i dont think that's anything like an accurate characterisation of the response to syria. 'the world shifts uneasily in its seat, acknowledging that there is nothing it can do that wont make the situation worse, and even if there was it would be blocked by the geopolitical stalemate between the US and russia over the issue', would be more like the reality

and anyway, as the israeli government and its spokespeople regularly, and accurately, point out, israel is a democracy while its opponents are terrorist groups. Indeed; and its responses are judged as that of a democracy, which is to a much higher standard than its opponents. we expect little in the way of adherence to international norms and laws from terrorist groups, but we do expect compliance from democratic states, even if that is inconvenient at times.

And Bruce is right; in the long term, all empires fall, and the american one will be no different. if israelis intend to live in their current location in the long term, then the strategy really should start to reflect that. grudges are borne in that region for centuries, or millennia. will america still be around in 500 years time to bale the state of israel out when the stormy waters rise?

cheers
gregor

ps i heard the uncle of one of the murdered jewish boys on 5 live this morning calling for restraint, calm and the rule of law to be adhered to on all sides. despite everything, he was optimistic for future peace, though realistic that it may not come in his lifetime. an astonishingly powerful piece of radio, and and incredibly courageous man. we need to hear more voices like his.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What percentage of the Israeli population is Arab Bruce? And how many MPs do the Arab parties have in the Knesset?

In reply to TobyA:

20.7% are Arab

In reply to Bruce Hooker

It's going to happen one day

- wishful thinking?

the sensible thing to do is not to wait,

- extreme sensibility there.

get out now.

- ah ok, ill just crash on your sofa.

In reply to woolsack:

A question for Dror1. Should the Israeli West Bank barrier be dismantled, and if not why not?

In reply to Dror1:


Temporarily while you got yourself sorted, why not? If you could put up with us! You wouldn't be the first person of Jewish descent I've lived with, nor shared a bed with

PS. She was a she BTW but the principle is the same. You would need to be open minded, my wife is Armenian, can you manage that? When will you be coming? The next few weeks are a bit tricky as we are off to England for a bit but I imagine you'd need a little time to get sorted. We have a spare room so that's ok.

In reply to TobyA:


Can't you look it up yourself?

In reply to icnoble:


well tricky one. the way it was built , i think was not considerate to several palestinian villages. however the reasons it was built i agree with.
at the time suicide bombers were blowing up pretty much every week in restaurants, buses, etc... the moment the wall was built that dropped drastically. I dont think anyone, or the public, would agree the wall dismantled at the moment, having said that, i reckon if a stable peace is achieved it will slowly be dismantled.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



- what do you mean can i manage that ? do you think i have a problem living with foreigners or muslims or whatever ??? thanks for the offer. im actually living in the uk at the moment.. (i also have a large room if you decide to leave france )

In reply to icnoble:


Why don't you ask hamas what they would do if the barrier that's saved lives, was removed?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Do you actually know and are just refusing to acknowledge the complexity of the situation? Or do you not know and don't want to know? I know you are a fundamentalist on this, so it won't change your opinion - that's fine, but I wonder if you actually see and accept the same facts as everyone else.

In reply to Dror1:


It was a joke... more or less, you don't know Armenians, do you?

In reply to TobyA:


Actually the situation isn't complex, it's very simple. Some people have taken over a country over the last century or so, at first gradually then by violence in 1948 and they have been holding onto it by violence ever since. A simple colonial situation, with a simple solution, the colonials have to leave. They've done it more or less everywhere else, why not in Palestine?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well, except Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Tibet, Peru, Chile, Columbia, Uruguay, Ecuador, Western Sahara, West Papua, Greenland and probably a dozen other countries or regions I've forgotten about.

Again, Israel seems very very special to you; so particularly special that you actually advocate a new "ethnic cleansing" of that geographical area but none of the others.

In reply to TobyA:

Nearly all of your examples are getting on for a hundred plus years old whereas the ink is still drying on the current situation in Palestine/Israel. Aren't we supposed to be living in more enlightened times?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


nope, anything interesting about them ? wasnt it the first christian kingdom or something ? maybe im confused with another place

In reply to woolsack:


Are we meant to be - yes, are we - probably not. And many Israelis would probably go on at great length about how there have always been Jews living in what is now Israel, plus that there are Israeli citizens with full citizenship rights who are Palestinians - all making it more complicated than what Bruce calls colonialism.

BTW, Indonesia only annexed West Papua in 69, China annexed Tibet in 1950, Morocco only seized Western Sahara in the 1970s, Greenland only got a measure of home rule a couple of years ago but still isn't independent. Australia was still trying to 'cleanse' the Aborigines in the 60s with assimilation; and lots of other countries that emerged from the colonial period also involved the subjugation of one ethnic group by another - states that also claim to be democracies as Israel does. None of that makes the wrong things that the Israeli government does, any less wrong but it does make it a lot less special than some seem to believe.

In reply to Dror1:


Lots. Thought you might have heard of the genocide carried out against the Armenians in the early 20th century?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


yes, but i doubt any armenian would want that to be the only interesting thing about his/her culture.

In reply to Dror1:

?? Who said they do? Not me.

In reply to woolsack:

BTW - I don't think you ever clarified it; do you think that Israel is paying ISIS? Have you read something that leads you to think that.

I'm packing for moving currently, and have been doing huge amounts of recycling of old printed material I've had in the shed for the last couple of years. I was slightly sad about putting my collection of English translations of the greatest hits of 80s and 90s jihadist literature into the recycling bin, but flicking through some of it again before biking it over to recycling point, it quite noticeable that they REALLY don't like the Jews. Of course Israel helped fund Hamas in the early days, but I think they regret that rather stupid plan these days! I doubt that there would be many people in Jerusalem thinking that funding ISIS would be a cunning plan after that.

In reply to TobyA:

Did you listen to this series?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03kqbqj

Very interesting, I thought.

In reply to TobyA:



I don't think Israel is unhappy that they are surrounded by chaos, it does rather divert everyone's attention away from Israel's activities. So it wouldn't be illogical to 'leave the gate open' for them, or certainly plenty of weapons, Hummers and that odd $500myn on cash that has disappeared from Iraqi banks. Israel does have a cunning way of massaging the US though I'm sure you'll say there is no evidence of that

In reply to woolsack:


Considering the importance of a stable Egypt and Jordan to Israel's security, I think the current turmoil has only been detrimental.


So somehow Israel managed to convince the Iranian-backed Maliki government five years ago to fail to reach a status of forces agreement with the newly elected Obama administration, in order for the the US to leave Iraq and leave a semi-trained and equipped Shia-based Iraqi national army. I guess they likewise convinced Maliki to rule as sectarian despot thus creating the ground for Sunni areas that had once risen up and defeated a salafi-jihadist regime of terror in their parts of Iraq to accept a new one that would be produced by three years of brutal civil war in different country Syria. At this point I get confused - did the Israelis start the Syrian civil war in order to radicalize one side to the extent that they would produce a bunch of murdering pyschopaths like ISIS?

You can perhaps see where my scepticism comes from. You must REALLY want Israel to be the cause of this to really follow that line of thinking.

In reply to TobyA:



Another totally dishonest post, you know very well what is meant by decolonisation, the "wind of change" and so on. The examples you give are at a totally different level. The colonisation carried out by Europeans during the 19th century have been nearly all reversed, there are just a few left - curiously the ones you don't mention like Gibraltar, the Malvinas, and various French possessions. As usual you are using silly red-herrings, anything to take the pressure of Israel...

One wonders why, if you are an Israeli yourself at least be honest enough to admit it, we'll still talk to you just as we do MikeTS and Dror. Clearly you have some kind of vested interest, why not get it out in the open and get back to the real subject - ie. the deliberate decision taken by Western people at the latter half of the 19th century to do as all around them were doing and grab a bit of land for themselves and set up their own ethnico/religious "homeland" - zionism. As for other empire builders of the time the indigenous population didn't count, for some they didn't even exist.

But they do exist, just, 10 million of them spread around the world and they want their land back. What arguments have you to say why they have no right to it? Stick on the subject for once.

In reply to Dror1:


Forget it, just a joke, they were indeed the first Christian country, but they are also very oriental.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes, which is why I listed countries that have been colonised and not decolonised. Ask a Cherokee, or a Maori or a Tibetan.


Ha ha! I'm Israeli now am I? Lolz dude, etc. You and your vested interests... people can't just see the world differently from you can they? Please note, I haven't suggested that your particular zealousness on denying Israel's right to exist is based on some fear or hatred of Jews. Why is it that those that disagree with you have vested interests but you don't?


Now this is historically interesting; because of course Zionism was quite different from most latter European imperialism, and much closer to say the Pilgrim Fathers; seeking flight and separation from Europe. The Spanish in Argentina or the British in India, didn't see themselves as - at least originally - having any attachment to that land beyond having seized it by being superior to the 'natives'. Israel was never a colony of Poland, or Germany or Russia. Of course you don't want to engage in these historical realities because it complicates your "decolonization" narrative and helps it explain why Israelis see things rather differently to you, regardless of whether we think they are right or wrong.

In reply to TobyA:

TobyA nails it every time

In reply to TobyA:


You have actually, you continually suggest that anti-semitism is behind anyone who criticizes Israel's crimes - what else does your silly list suggest? As someone who clearly takes pride in his knowledge of foreign affairs what else could justify you making yourself look so ridiculous by comparing Israel's acts - starting with the military take-over in 1948 - with events that go back centuries to days when "might is right" was the accepted rule?

Nowadays it isn't.

In reply to TobyA:


Yes of course it was and the colonisation of N America is a near example, except that happened centuries ago when civilized humans were far more barbaric than today, there have been many variants on colonialism (I don't know why you bring imperialism into it) the zionists thought they had the right to Palestine for historical reasons, they did discuss a few other places, and most definitely saw their rights as above that of locals. Some were left wing and wanted to live with the Arab populations but they soon found themselves at odds with the majority.


Of course it wasn't, who has said it was? It was a refuges for Jews, mistreated, murdered in many countries for centuries, the only problem being that their solution was another people's "final solution". As said above you might have thought that an oppressed people would have an in-built aversion to oppressing another people but that isn't how many humans react. At present they are chanting in the streets of Jerusalem "death to the Arabs"


It seems evident that you are prepared to go to any lengths to avoid discussing the realities of today, let alone historical ones, just red-herrings by the ton to prevent any discussion of the reality of Palestine. It's your usual tactic and it does you no credit.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



- again you use the word for the jewish holocaust as a description of the situation there. you also agree its not comaparable, then why use that word ? just makes you look more anti semitic than perhaps you are.

- At present they are chanting in the streets of Jerusalem "death to the Arabs"

- who is they ? all israelis ? or just the ones looking for the cameras to shout stupid things at ?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Except for the post above where I said exactly the opposite?

It is kind of pointless having these discussions with you, if you ignore what people write and then tell us (incorrectly) what we actually said, and even who we are!

In reply to Dror1:


Do I agree it's not comparable? The more I read about what has happened in Palestine since 1948, before even, the more I see it as a genocide, the destruction of a culture and a people as a people. It's true there are no gas chambers but this is made up for by the fact that these horrors went on before, we should know better surely?

I suppose I should thank you for the "perhaps", but it's not easy as I'm not anti-semitic at all, in fact I don't see Jews as any different to myself, in fact most probably they aren't as most descend from converts to Judaism many centuries ago, genetically they are nothing to do with those who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago they just share a similar religion and culture. In fact I have more difficulties with Islam than I do with Judaism.



"They" is a plural pronoun, it refers to a number of people doing something. I don't think you can deny that a number of people were shouting "Death to Arabs", can you? Even if other Israelis don't say it openly their continued presence in Palestine and the way they vote implies the same.

In reply to TobyA:



But it's implied in everything you post... if someone kills someone while at the same time saying "I love you" what counts the most? You continually support Israel, you even said I should go there as you had just done. You'll even say, doubtless, that you have often been critical of Israel but what counts more is the way you wade into any thread against the latest crime committed by Israel and do all you can to scupper it - usually by dragging it off subject as you are doing here... since you intervened posters have been forced to react to your red herrings rather than concentrate on the subject. People are judged on their acts not what they say they think.

Usually it was by saying "but what about Sudan, Darfour etc?", now you're on a slightly different tack but always trying to divert the conversation with non-arguments, and they are non-arguments as whatever one may think about the subjects you mention it doesn't let Israel off the hook in the slightest... just red-herrings coupled perhaps with weak attempts to discredit other posters.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You could just try taking part in the debate, rather than telling people what they REALLY mean, then insulting them for believing what you think they believe. But if that floats your boat...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Still, Israel is the perfect model for the middle east's future Bruce. Even a n old fashioned anti semite like you, must wonder why the muslim arabs can't progress beyond the 7th century, whereas them Jooz in 70 yrs turned a swamp infested shithole into a remarkable country. Toby's right, you should get off your whinging, arabist arse, and ask your famous Muslim neighbours why their brothers can't do the same?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



- evidence gentic differences to people who lived there 2000 years ago? No, i also don't have any, so drop the genes arguments.. Its pointless.


- yes there are stupid and angry people everywhere including the uk and france.

In reply to TobyA:


Good idea, why don't you instead of going an about Australia and New Zealand??

PS. What insults have you seen?

In reply to dek:


So being in favour of the Palestinians, thinking, and saying they deserve to get their country back is "anti-semite"? If it's not that could you point out a single anti-semitic phrase I've posted on ukc?

You're using the Toby tactic, red-herrings to avoid the debate.

In reply to Dror1:


But what else is the zionist argument based on? What other justification do you put forward for going to live in Palestine yourself but refusing Palestinians, mostly their descendants nowadays, this same right to return to the country of their ancestors? Especially as they are thinking of recent ancestors who they knew or at least have photos of, you can't claim the same.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yo Bruce, telling all the Israeli Jews they should pack up and leave, while they can, was a good recent one.
BTW
Your 'Death to the arabs' little ditty, was by 200 demonstrators, typically you didn't mention the thousands demonstrating for no violence, and peace!
Also...The bodies of the three teenagers were I read, mutilated in 'classic' arab style.The ambulance taking away the corpses was attacked,smashed, and paint bombed.

In reply to dek:


That's not anti-semitic, race isn't involved, it is the only way to solve this sort of conflict. In Algeria most French settlers refused to see the writing on the wall and it ended in a blood bath - mostly Algerian blood but about 50 000 French died too. The intelligent ones admitted that the world had changed and left before. Were those who said they should leave before anti-French racists?

You're problem is you take any strong criticism of the Israelis as anti-semitic, anything beyond "well there's good and bad on both sides" has you shouting "anti-semite!"

As for the Arab violence how does it compare to that of Israel? How many died in the Gaza not so long ago and day by day since? When people are killed by shrapnel and rockets do you think this mutilation is a pretty picture? Why don't you refer to body parts spread all over a street as "classic Jewish style mutilation"? And always forgetting the fundamental injustice that Palestine belongs to Palestinians and not the foreign settlers who have taken it over - Palestinians are defending, Israelis are attacking, right and wrong is absolutely clear.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Based mainly of being overswamped by people who speak another language have another culture, basically becoming a minority. Which group of people would allow that? The french? Anglo saxons? Heh

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




Interesting point. Well there is a difference between being killed by a bomb from an aircraft, and face to face. This has nothing to do with israelis, see milgrams experiments for instance. Easy to hurt someone when they are not in front of you. In the case of the kidnapped israelis, there is a recording when one of them dialed the police, and in it you can hear the kidnappers joking and singing as they killed them.
I dont know if settlers killed that palestinian teenager, should be dealt with in the same way if thats the case.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:



As you say very interesting. It covers the same ground as a book I read about the history of the Ottoman Empire and another about the Arab world. My problem is I read them but cannot record the details, the basic themes stick but the details don't, very frustrating.

In reply to Dror1:


But that's precisely what the Jewish immigrants have done to the Palestinian people. Don't you realise that?

In the 20's and 30's some Palestinians saw what was coming but continued to rely on petitioning the British authorities as they had done under the Ottomans. By the time they realised what was going to happen, as you say that they would be overwhelmed by an alien people, it was too late. The Jews were better organised, generally more together and better armed so that by 1948 despite still being a minority they defeated the Palestinians and took over the country. That's the history of Israel/Palestine, sometimes I get the impression you are not aware of it, that you have been brought up to believe something different.

In reply to Dror1:

I don't think it's a joke killing people, whoever they are, but just imagine one of the murderers had come from seeing a kid in pieces, killed by an Israeli execution by rocket of a Hamas leader, collateral damage, don't you think he could have been sufficiently dehumanised to act like this? If for whatever reason your son or daughter were killed in such circumstances what would you be capable of doing? For myself I don't know for sure but I can't guarantee I would act like those who call for restraint and humanity, I might just want to kill someone on the other side, and yet I've had a comfortable life, in comparative ease, not packed into a Bantustan like Gaza or a refugee camp.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Many peoples children have died yet on both sides i hear parents as these not wanting revenge, so thats not an excuse. These kind of murderers are worse than animals. Animals kill when they need to eat, or in defense, not for amusement.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



- you certainly are a man with many wrong impressions.

In reply to Dror1:

Agreed. This are the news today in the 'front page' of google news...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/arab-teenagers-autopsy-results-show-he-was-b...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-07/06/c_126715718.htm

In reply to Dror1:


Nothing I have said in these last few posts is denied by even the most banal sources such as Encarta or wikipedia. Why don't you just take a few hours to inform yourself about the history of the country you come from? If you now live in England go to your local library and you'll find more complete works on the subject. Start with looking at a few simple population figures.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

- someone should do a PhD on you. Probably will win a nobel prize, though im not sure in which area..

Just joking, I'll head to the library now. What do you recommend? Protocols of the elders of zion?

In reply to Dror1:

its a matter of record that i've disagreed with Bruce on many things on this site over the years, but on this issue- the historical context of the creation of Israel- i'm not sure what there is to disagree with. he seems to be simply stating matters of historical record.

and the fact that your reply is an ad hominem rather than disputing the substance of what he's said doesnt do you any favours,

cheers
gregor

In reply to Dror1:


Why not just wikipedia? It'll get you started. When I decided I wanted to know more about Israel/Palestine I just read Encarta although this is probably not so popular these days... I don't think microsoft has ever been accused of being anti-semitic.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Why not just recommend the guardian? After all its got a story about Israel near every day......and it's famously 'unbiased' regarding them izzaraelis, right?

In reply to dek:
You do realise the difference between a newspaper reporting current affairs, and history books (and online encyclopedias) recording past events don't you dek?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


-ok, but i want to finish the hobbit first, thats about jews isnt it. I have hairy feet.

In reply to Dror1:


Now you're being flippant, I don't believe you have hairy feet, Jewish girls don't anyway. As said the Guardian isn't supposed to give an unbiased view of things, it's a newspaper of opinion, I meant at least check out the basic facts about how it came to pass that a country which had mostly Muslim Arabs, with a few Druzes, a few Christian Arabs and a very few Jews - about 4% - came to be a country with a Jewish majority, ruled by this majority even more than it's numbers would suggest and which insisted it was a Jewish state, all in the period of about a century. And secondly what happened to the previous Arab majority during the same period.

I would have thought it was a subject that would interest you even more than me.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



-- which country are you talking about that changed its demography? sorry i cant seem to find any records of such a country..

In reply to Dror1:


look in the right place then

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You've checked them all have you?

In reply to woolsack:

- please educate me. as far as i know the ottoman empire was there if thats what you mean.

In reply to woolsack:

The area of the Middle East known as Palestine. It's not that hard, any encyclopaedia will have the heading, somewhere between Palermo and Palladium.... unless you're doing a Golda Meir on us and saying such a people didn't even exist!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


-The people you refer to started defining themselves as such in the 60s, theres no evidence of a nation before that, and besides i was talking about a country which oddly some people here claim existed. So which country was it?

In reply to Dror1:


There you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

In reply to Dror1:



But then you know all of that and are just being disingenuous as usual

In reply to woolsack:

You claimed there was a country, i asked which, yet you fail to produce a name, but give me all kind of facts about palestinians. Instead of calling me names, maybe you should admit that the word 'country' was wrong... If your capable of admitting a mistake .

In reply to Dror1:

"you're"?

In reply to Dom Whillans:

Indeed

In reply to Dror1:

I'm saying you are being disingenuous, not calling you names. You can stop being the victim
Displacing 700-800,000 people is nothing to take pride in

In reply to woolsack:

So was there ever a country called Palestine or not?

In reply to woolsack:



- being the victim?

- did you notice any pride in anything i said here?

- last question, have you been drinking this evening?

In reply to nw & dror:

There was a part of the world called Palestine in the past, at least the equivalent in the local language, based on the word "Philistine" which we all read about at school, remember David smiting Goliath? Goliath was a Philistine. Depending on who was dominating this part of the world it had a different names;

"Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn; Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina) is a geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. It is sometimes considered to include adjoining territories. The name was used by Ancient Greek writers, and was later used for the Roman province Syria Palaestina, the Byzantine Palaestina Prima and the Umayyad and Abbasid province of Jund Filastin"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

It was even dominated by people who called themselves "Jews" for a while... you must have heard of that and they used the term too (פלשתינ&#1492.

(ukc can't deal with other scripts apparently)

Recently, for about 4 centuries IIRC, it was part of the Ottoman Empire and they used various administrative divisions. At the fall of the Ottoman empire it was placed by the league of nations under a British mandate and called Mandatory Palestine. Even the Zionists used the term Palestine, calling for "the setting up of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine"... so really it's hard to see where your difficulty with the use of the word comes from.

Anyway the point is that the bit of land now referred to as Palestine and/or Israel had a population within the Ottoman empire, about 96% Arab and 4% Jewish and the descendants of these people, whatever you call them, have a right to their land which has been stolen by outsiders - you could call it "Blue Basket Land" and this basic fact would still be true. This applies to the descendants of the Jewish minority too, as the PLO and Hamas even agree to.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Zochrot presents the first Nakba map in Hebrew.
It includes the localities in the country that were destroyed between the beginning of Zionist colonization and the 1967 war.

The map shows:
678 Palestinian localities that Israel destroyed during the Nakba

http://zochrot.org/en/top/%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A0%D6%B7%D7%9B%D6%BC...

http://www.zochrot.org/en/content/nakba-map

In reply to gd303uk:

'Naqba' just means disaster. It was a date with 'disaster' when the 5 arab armies attacked the new Israeli state, and got their arses whipped. It's now part of Islamic grievance theatre to celebrate it on Israels independence day. You can thank the Egyptian terrorist Arafat, for the idea.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

'What appened' to that Moses bloke, the Israelites, and some guy called Jesus Christ?.....Where were they all from?

In reply to dek:


Whereas you can thank a bunch of Israeli terrorists for creating the new Israeli state. Oh, I forgot, it isn't terrorism when you do it is it?

In reply to dek:
Educate yourself , and see where that information comes from, try to be objective.

http://jfjfp.com/?p=43330

In reply to dek:
using the modern concept of political boundaries to describe an area that's many millennia old is bullshit... largely it's Britain's fault, I grant you, but wilfully denying that there wasn't a nation of humans there before the establishment of Israel is a horrible thing to do. Israel's constant quest for throwing indigenous people off their traditional land is just as horrible. and no different to what imperialists have done all across the world, usually hundreds of years ago. it sickens me to think that we haven't come as far as we proclaim.

In reply to dek:


Palestine, your quite right, but I think that was covered on the link I gave and the refs I gave.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Oo this thread is heating up.
Point is that your etymology of philistine to refer to a made up country doesnt score you any points. Nobody's denying the existence of palestinians, you can keep all your opinions intact without making up countries.

If people here spent as much energy climbing as they have on israel posts in recent years you would be onsighting e9's by now!

In reply to Dror1:


Perhaps we care more about Israeli atrocities like the use of phosphorus bombs against civilians than we do about even the grit! When Israel starts abiding by UN Resolutions then they have a platform for negotiation. Until then I can't help seeing them as an aggressive military power which will stop at nothing to subsume and destroy a neighbouring people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_a...

"As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by United Nations Human Rights Council since its creation in 2006—the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance)".

Seems a fairly damning indictment.

In reply to Hephaestus:




- i have nothing against caring for peoples lives, though i find it odd that you and others seem to care much more about palestinians suffering from israels actions than shia and sunni suffering immensely more from each other. (if you follow the news...)

btw , if you dont know the UN human rights council is blatant anti israeli, focusing an unproportional amount of time and energy on israel , compared to other parts of the world. (perhaps because its dominated by anti israeli countries...)

In reply to Dror1:


Everyone is bored of hearing this. We're interested in hearing your defence of Israel, we're not interested in being told that we should be interested in something else.

In reply to Dror1:

You have no basis on which to make this statement.


Wow! Perhaps they focus so much time on the Israeli/Palestine issue because it's resulting in massive humanitarian problems and not because they're bigots.

In reply to Hephaestus:


- the basis being : attention on israel divided by number of deaths, compared to attention to shia/sunni divided by number of deaths. would you care to crunch the numbers ? i have to much number crunching to do in other areas at the moment


- they are not bigots, just have a political agenda rather than caring about global human rights.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


- you speak for everyone? in that case ill address all my mails to you.
how should i address you ? sauron ?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hitchens wrote about this in his blog this week

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/07/some-thoughts-on-the-use-of-...

In reply to Dror1:


I'm pointing out that telling people they should be looking somewhere else is not constructive nor interesting. I think it's fair to assume that anyone interested in substance of the issue would agree.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


- point taken

In reply to Dror1:


Not what I was quibbling with, but what the f*ck does that mean? It's nonsense.


You seem pretty deluded on this issue. Agreed that there are always political agendas, but the fact that almost half of the resolutions passed by the UN are against Israel is damning. Are they anti-israeli? No. They're against bombing civilians with phosphorous and other horrific actions.

In reply to Hephaestus:


- no need to swear.


- thats total rubbish, its well known they are anti israeli, and focus disproportionately on israel, while countless horrors are being commited elsewhere, if you want to believe otherwise to support your own anti israeli stance, thats up to you.

In reply to Dror1:

Israel has increasingly avoided accountability for serious violations of human rights of West Bank and Gaza residents for which it is responsible. One example is the policy enforced in the West Bank until April 2011: as a rule, not to open criminal investigations in cases in which soldiers killed Palestinians who were not taking part in the hostilities. Another is the enactment of legislation that denies Palestinians harmed by illegal acts of Israeli security forces almost any possibility to file compensation suits in Israeli courts.

In reply to Dror1:

but Israel has been up to this for decades while pretending to be a modern democracy. No other supposedly civilised country has been behaving similarly. Take a look around the world and spot where problems have been ameliorated, then have a look at Israel. They won't talk constructively, won't stop aggressively moving settlers into disputed areas and generally act like swaggering bully boys. If it looks like Israel is picked on by the UN it's because they refuse to act constructively and take no notice of them.

Countless horrors may have been perpetrated elsewhere, but Israel receives more attention because they make very little effort to improve the situation.

And I'll swear if I like - need or no need.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Judging by this article Hitchens appears to be a sort of dror with writing abilities I hope he isn't paid for writing such piffle - as if the name given to a dispossessed people and their land is of importance.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So, there's no difference between 'Derry' and 'Londonderry' then?

In reply to Hephaestus:


Y
I wont address your pointless post partly because of your final words. You aound quite immature.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


- becoming personal out of desperation are we?

In reply to Dror1:

Splendid

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Fundamentally no, but it a is not equivalent to Palestine anyway as there is no effort being made by the conqueror to prevent them using the name, they have simply bulldozed whole villages and given them completely different name... Things have gone much further in Palestine than in N Ireland, but please don't bog the thread down in arguing about N I versus Palestine, it won't help either.

At present the death toll is 15 dead on the Palestinian side (or call them Arab or Muslim if you want assuming no non-Arab Palestinians were killed) and the Israeli army is getting ready for a ground attack....

In reply to gd303uk:


- dont forget that israelis cant exactly demand justice in hamas courts. Violations or not, would you not say sudan, just one example, has violated human rights with at least the same severity? Human rights council? Na....

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



- yeah. Perhaps if you mentioned the hundreds of rockets being fired in the past 24 hours... But your news 'reporting' is always one sided.. You should receive a pulitzer, really..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You can't even retell a children's story without wiping israel off the map!
The new caliphate has a vacancy, for a 'Baghdad Bruce'.

In reply to Dror1:

If you find yourself agreeing with Hitchens its a good indication your thinking is a bit warped. Comment 2 of the article is good

In reply to Dror1:

FFS drop the whataboutery!

In reply to Dror1:

I thought of saying "a thinking man's Dror" but I thought that many thinking men might agree with you and ukc pedants would come out of the woodwork saying "what about thinking women"? Anyway you must admit you don't make much effort when it comes to writing stylishly or correctly even, but that doesn't matter it's the contents that count. Surely you aren't going to worry about personal remarks, I don't worry about yours.

There are 15 dead in Gaza now, and also 3 Jews dead too in none too pleasant circumstances... How long do you think this can go on for? Aren't you better off out of it? Why go back?

In reply to Dror1:

If you are ever stopped for say speeding, as a bit of advice trying "but officer haven't you got real work to do with proper criminals" won't help.

In reply to Dror1:


The difference is it's their country, they are doing what little they can to fight back, if you clear out they'll be no more rockets, it's as simple as that.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Funny, i thought sharon cleared gaza, since then many thousands of rockets were fired. Clearly you think hamas is some peaceful group..

In reply to Dror1:


A third, and even fourth, generation of Palestinians and Israelis has been born into this reality, and they know no other. Israel has created a reality in which the Palestinians live under a harsh military regime, which serves first and foremost Israeli and settler interests. This reality of dispossession, oppression and violation of human rights in the West Bank has lasted almost fifty years, and indicates far-reaching intentions for the future. While this state of affairs is progressively entrenched, the illusion that it can continue indefinitely grows stronger. The inevitable result is daily violation of the human rights of Palestinians living under occupation.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

This is painful for me. The siren went off few minutes ago in jerusalem where i live. Fortunately, no Hamas rockets landed.
What pains me is the lack of sympathy shown by the members of this thread for the millions of Israelis sheltering, the kids and old traumatised.
Israel does not occupy gaza. Before Hamas took over there was thriving trade and movement. Gaza could have developed. Into a prosperous place. But Hamas took over nine years ago. It wants to kill the Jews of Israel because they are Jews . It rejects talks, and only supports the so called armed struggle
It terrorises it's own people and keeps them in poverty and ignorance to maintain its terrorist regime.
How can anyone here be supporting such an evil regime?

Ok, israel haters, enjoy the rest of the thread.
Not sure you will if you dont have me to bash around, actually i was looking for climbing partners when i came across this friendly thread, anyway if anyones willing to climb with the human rights abuser that i am.. (and hobbit, dont listen to bruce i do have hairy feet)

In reply to Dror1:


No, they are a resistance movement fighting one of the most powerful armies in the world as best they can, which unfortunately means using methods most of us would deplore in any other circumstances, but it's an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or rather a fraction of a eye for quite a few teeth in such an unequal situation.

If you (collectively) had a gram of decency you would give them their country back and stop the massacre.

In reply to MikeTS:


It's not your country, leave now and you will be respected, stay and continue killing the rightful inhabitants and you will, as you say, get no sympathy, at best.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Oh do f*ck off bruce! Your arab wet dream of a Judenfrei Dar al-islam just isn't going to happen, get over it!

In reply to MikeTS:

Is anyone supporting Hammas, except possibly Beuce?

In reply to dek:

^^^ Like isn't appropriate, but I agree.

There is precious little difference between the protestants who settled the 6 counties and the jews who settled in 'Palestine'; and neither are going anywhere. It's their home.

All interested parties have to recognise that fact. It's working(ish) in N Ireland; it can be made to work in Palestine.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It was only after reading the article and replying that I realised who the author was and where he wrote! In the replies below this one seemed the best:

"I'm surprised that Mr Hitchens is quibbling over the term "Palestinian". In fact, he would do better better to examine the word "Israeli", given that the vast majority of those who claim that title do in fact hail from regions as far afield as Lithuania, London, and Los Angeles. Unlike the vast majority of Palestinians, whose ancestors have lived in Palestine since records began (and have the land deeds to prove it).

Posted by: J Gribben | 07 July 2014 at 06:32 PM

In reply to MG:

I don't support Hamas for much of what they are but I can understand how so many Palestinians turned towards them - they'd tried everything else to no avail so what was left? You can stand just so many friends and family dying at the hands of people who are armed and supported by most of the rest of the world before you can no longer stand the hypocrisy of "democrats", so many failed attempts of "talks" and meetings and still the oppression goes on, not even the right to import flour and cement without the permission of well dressed foreigners who have taken all your family had. What's left but extremism and religion? Who else is fighting back?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


N Ireland was done over 300 years ago when that's how things were done. Israel was done in 1948, after the War to end Wars and after the setting up of the League of Nations and the UN which was supposed to prevent things being done this way, it makes a difference.

If it doesn't then all the talking, all the UNing is just bullshit and we are still living in a world where might is right. That's what Israel is all about, doing thing the way they were done centuries ago, do you think that's still the way the world should be run? Can't we do better now? A lot of people are watching.

In reply to MG:

Hamas want to destroy Israel. Pretty well everyone in this thread does not allow israel legitimacy to defend itself against this group of terrorists. I see little difference

In reply to MikeTS:
Rubbish. Most people are objecting to Israel's illegal settlements, group punishments and generally Israel shitting on the Palestinians for decades and then pretending there are the victims.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Why people don't though is interesting. I have a Palestinian friend who, totally unsurprisingly, fills her facebook feeds with reports from Electronic Intifada and the like, detailing new power and human rights abuses committed by the IDF in the West Bank. That's daily reality for her friends and family. Just like Dror here, being Israeli, is not very surprisingly going to see things from the Israeli perspective and ask people not to forget that side of the story - the barrage of rockets out of Gaza for example.

But why people are so pro-Israel (normally in the US) or anti-Israel (often on this side of the Atlantic) while not having direct connections to the conflict, I think IS interesting. My interest in this thread originally was sparked by Woolsack's specific reference to a certain plan that he thought explained why Israel would be funding the murderous jihadis of ISIS in Iraq. I hadn't heard of the plan so looked it up. It seems to me the idea that this 1982 position paper written for extremist political party constituted some master plan of the Jewish state, whilst having become something of a 'thing' on the internet, fell straight back into European antisemitic tropes of conniving Jews secretly manipulating the world. Then we've got dek as well who never misses the chance on threads like these to describe Arabs (and/or Muslims?) in massively sweeping and often offensive ways. So much ire goes into outsiders fighting the Israel/Palestine fight for the two sides; yet worse humanitarian disasters and not disimilar political conflicts go on elsewhere with few people even having heard of them let alone showing any interest in them. What is it about Israel/Palestine that makes it so symbolic for so many?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You are a bizarre chap, you really are, considering just a few weeks ago you were supporting the military invasion, take over and annexation of Crimea by Russia and belittling the OSCE norms of no border changes with out negotiation and agreement. You'll get a stiff neck from the whiplash if you're not careful!

In reply to MG:


Hamas have vowed to kill 'Jews', not just Israelis but Jews worldwide, including the children whom they call 'soldiers'.
Bruce is just simply getting in touch with his 'Inner Nazi'

In reply to TobyA:


I agree that there is a valid and interesting discussion about why where there is a wider and deeper interest in this conflict than in others. But in the context of a debate about the conflict itself, whataboutery is tedious and a non-argument.


Come on, it's not weird, or magic, or sinister or anything. Many other conflicts in the world are between groups with whom the UK public have essentially no connection, personally, nor historically - nor any grasp at all of the history. Israel/Palestine on the other hand is quite simply "closer to home" on many many different levels. For example, I have Jewish family who express a strong ethnic and religious allegiance on one side.

In reply to MikeTS:



Umm, maybe there is a connection with the Israeli air strikes on Gaza Mike? You're happy to give it out aren't you?




Israel operates Gaza like a giant prison, has done for years. Stop the victim bullshit

In reply to woolsack:

Herr Woolshit.
Do you see any reason why the IDF shouldn't re-enter gaza, and find the rockets, or should thry just fire in random missiles as the terrorists do?

In reply to TobyA:
Still red-herringing then... You seem to forget that Crimea has been part of Russian for a couple of centuries or so, only transferred to Ukraine in the 50s when this was an internal administrative change within the USSR and that the great majority living there are Russians... If you don't see the difference with the situation in Palestine I think you had better change your professional ambitions a little - thought of becoming a milkman?

PS. Latest Israeli score 24 dead, including an 8 year old and over a 100 injured... no further victims on the Israeli side. Large numbers of very big tanks now preparing to crush Palestinians, some of whom are said to have Toyotas.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's often a good column. Hitchens writes well and has some interesting perspectives that usually ignite decent debate. I usually visit him after scanning the pictures on FeMails wall of shame

In reply to dek:



It doesn't really matter what they do, because it's not going to make any difference either way. The continued lobbing of missiles across borders from both sides is surely the clearest indication of the complete failure of the tiresome old eye-for-an-eye politics. Every missile and bomb proves the failure of the politicians, and yet somehow they think it's the right thing to do, playing to the home crowd.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Why do you waste so much time arguing about the politics and injustice of who is doing what and why?

Logically, if Israel shouldn't exist then everything it does is wrong, which is the circular argument you have been using for years but wasted months of your time repeating the circle.

Why not just stop at part 1: Israel shouldn't exist; end of story?

In reply to Postmanpat:



Is it logical. Surely it could do all sorts of good stuff (spread peace, democracy, free-schools and private healthcare worldwide) while still being wrong to exist?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You either hold that international law has some value or you don't. There is nothing saying that the Crimea couldn't become independent or even join Russia - just like there is nothing saying that either two viable independent states or one democratic and secular state isn't the right solution for Israel/Palestine, but the use of military force and military occupation isn't the way to either achieve those endpoints or stop them from happening.

You just use the term "red-herring" every time you can't explain why you believe one thing in situation A and the opposite in situation B. On this thread you have picked some arbitrary cut off point in history that allows the Maoris or the Cherokee to get f***ed over by European imperialism, but not the Palestinians. But then you won't explain why the Chinese are excluded from that cut off for their annexation of Tibet. It just looks like you really hate Israelis while you really like Chinese (because they call themselves communists?).

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That puts you in minority of -what?- a couple of percent in the current UK pop. who are Jewish, or have some Jewish ancestry? Muslim Britons also tend to express strong views on the situation and this is having some impact on national policy as well, but a) that's still only another 5 percent of the population or so, and b) for the vast majority of Muslim Brits, it's a total religio-political construct anyway because they have no closer family/ethnic connection to the Palestinians than I do.

The "whataboutery" charge is often used to deflect investigation into motivation. As a Brit (hence somehow carrying the legacy of the empire if you wish but with no connection to the Mid-East beyond that); I'm not sure why the Israel/Palestine conflict should be more important to my politics than say the massive human rights abuses carried out by the Sri Lankan government (another former part of 'our empire'). The elephant in the room on European interest in Is/Pal is that some people really hate Muslim while other people really don't like Jews, and they see the conflict through that prism. Not everyone of course, but both consistently come out in debates like this.

In reply to MG:

Sorry, I meant anything it does to defend its existence, although I guess you could broaden that to "anything you don't like".

In reply to tony:


^^ This.
I can't believe that every incident seems to lead inevitably to all out war. The current talk of a ground invasion has stemmed from the kidnap and murder of 3 kids. However horrible that might be, the way it has spiralled almost immediately into tanks and warplanes smashing Gaza is simply unsupportable.
An (unproven) allegation of murder has been used as an excuse for military intervention. Essentially, the whole of Gaza is being held responsible for the actions of a person / persons unknown and is paying a ridiculously high price. It's not even an eye for an eye.

In reply to Hephaestus:




- i meant to be off this thread, but your fact telling is even worse than bruce. (well as bad as..)
1. proven . phone recording of the two murderers singing while they kill them.
2. the ground invasion has everything to do with hundreds of rockets being fired, and nothing to do with the three murders.

In reply to Dror1:

So:

1. find the two murderers rather than bomb the shit out of the area and deal with them individually.
2. surely you can see that the root cause has escalated from one incident with each side culpable for reacting disproportionately to the others actions.

In reply to Dror1:


It's been done before, to no lasting effect. Why is it thought that it will be any different this time?

In reply to TobyA:


The fact that there are both Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK is a massive factor - with a that % of the population sharing allegiance in the conflict, you're going to know someone with a strong view for that reason. You're focusing on the least important point there, that I happen to have Jewish family.


In this case, whataboutery is a completely fair charge, made to try to keep the discussion about the issue.


There are loads of reasons. Our collective knowledge of 20th century history of the Jews is a massive one. The Israel-US relationship is another, what with the UK being a subsidiary in US foreign policy and all.


I don't agree. I think it's easy to see anti-Semitism and Islamophobia if you want to, or to think of equally compelling explanations for the views people hold.

In the case of the prevalent view that on balance, Israel is the aggressor and the Palestinians the oppressed, then to suggest it's motivated by anti-Semitism as is so often done on here is cheap, nasty, malicious and dishonest. The conflict has been reported in the media and however biased you and others may believe it to be, the Israeli government is given ample opportunity to convince us of the righteousness of their actions over the decades. The only people they can convince are Jewish and right-wing.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I made the point that Muslim Britons have an impact on UK policy, but a) they are still only a small percent of the UK population, and b) most (being South Asian) have no more familial connection to the conflict than I do. My only point about your family connection is that you will be part of a small minority of Brits who have a direct connection to either side of the conflict.

UK and US policy towards Israel has always been rather distinct. The UK doesn't have the domestic drivers of policy that the US does for example, or at least nowhere to the same degree. Israeli diplomats I've spoken to see Britain as much like the other European countries and much less sympathetic to their cause than the US.

Let recap - this thread was started by Woolsack suggesting that Israel is paying ISIS for its rampage in Iraq. He justified this by referring to the "Yinon plan" which when I looked it up turns out to be now an anti-semitic meme used by both fringe left and fringe right writers. Woolsack's argument was that this plan (from 1982), along with his feeling that ISIS in Iraq was "convenient" for Israel, was evidence for him at least that Israel was probably behind ISIS. It only subsequently devolved in Bruce saying that Israel has no right to exist, dek saying its all the Muslims fault, and a general rehash of 20th century history after that.

I don't think anyone else has shown any interest in Woolsacks actual thesis of Israel backing ISIS.

In reply to tony:

They probably don't but domestic politics makes them act. The governing parties know they will be charged with risking Israeli lives if they don't do something, whilst the Gazans they kill wouldn't have got a vote anyway. Secondly, my guess is that Israel is quite happy that after the military coup in Egypt. The Sisi regime has virtually closed the tunnels and are happy to see Hamas clobbered. Hamas won't be able to resupply so easily as a few years ago.

In reply to TobyA:


And I don't think that the family connection is important. I would have thought that the religious rather than ethnic "in group" provides British Muslims with reason enough to care about the conflict.


That maybe the case, but I think that the US ties give a tremendously unhelpful "Islam vs The West" flavour which is rather likely to ignite strong feeling amongst some Brits.


Yes, to be clear I was referring to the more general, broad debate that resulted.


No, they haven't. I had rather forgotten about it!

In reply to TobyA:


By this argument Israel shouldn't exist at all, it only came into existence by this method in 1948, but I don't suppose you think this applies to Israel?


No, you use the red-herring or whataboutery whenever you want to avoid discussion of Israel's crimes or moral arguments or legal arguments about it's "right" to exist because you cannot provide any. I could give loads of arguments for most of your whatabouts, and have done, but then I wouldn't be on this particular subject. It's your method which is such a pain, why can't you stick on the subject? Looks very much like lack of arguments.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think you're on the line hear, if we are so obsessed by Palestine, apart from the images we see every day and the horrendous way the figures of deaths mount up, it's because the conflict is bound up in other problems of our own societies. To give an example there was a case in Belgium the other day when a French muslim deliberately murdered several Jews, this followed on from a case in France when a young Muslim called Merah did the same, shooting several Jewish children and their teacher dead because they were Jews and also three French soldiers because they were French soldiers. Two were themselves muslims but the French government's role in Afghanistan and elsewhere put them on the side of Satan.

Obviously these events caused quite a stir and helped boost the extreme right anti-muslim side. As there are a lot of French muslims and there is a long term grievance on both sides from the Algerian war of independence - a million or so Algerians died - this has been taken up by all people who see the world in an ethnico/religious way or try to profit from it politically. In Israel France is said to be a country which is getting more and more anti-semitic, hence calls have been launched for Jews to leave for Israel, in muslim associations accusations of Jewish manipulation of these tragic events are made, the events in Israel, which "justified" both murderers also sparks off threads that run right through French society.

Just one example but Britain's role in the Middle East, past and present, breathing hot and cold on both sides of the conflict for a century leads to similar threads of hate. None of which can be equalled in the Sunni/Chia, Tibet, or whatever. Jews have lived in Europe for 2000 years, occupied positions of power at all levels, they are us.

(Sorry this post is a bit muddled, in a bit of a hurry.)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

they are us.

-- careful, people might think your'e becoming a humanitarian which obviously you are not.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That's bollocks, you ignore other people's arguments or dismiss them as invalid if they don't conform to your worldview. My position is, and I've said it many times here over the years, that Israel has no more right to exist than any other state, which are all political constructs. The thing is that it is there, it now has a large population of people born there and who don't have anywhere else to go to, and (particularly as a nuclear power and a state supported by a superpower) it's not going any where without conflict of a devastating level, which would kill Palestinians as much Israelis.

The Palestinians deserve a state where their human and democratic rights are respected, whether that be as full citizens of Israel or as citizens of an independent Palestine. You can wish away Israel, just as Tibetan activists can wish for an independent Tibet, but in either cases it's not happening it is, and it does nothing to better the situation of the people affected.

In reply to TobyA:


And tragically the key players simply don't agree: Hammas want to kill Jews, and the Israeli government wants to deny Palestinians equal rights. I know this is horribly simplistic but I struggle to see it any other way.

In reply to TobyA:


So what does domestic politics do when it happens again, which it will do, regardless of what you suggest about the new Egyptian Government? And do the majority of people on both sides really want a continuing escalation and repeated lobbing of bombs and missiles over the border? Or perhaps they might prefer a more peaceful way ahead and are frustrated by the constant appeasement to the extremes?

In reply to tony:

The way both sides vote suggests not.

In reply to MG:

A fair point. You do wonder when they're going to wake up and realise what a bloody waste it's all been.

In reply to tony:

Or perhaps the Palestinians have realised that the sensible way you hint at just doesn't exist for them? In past negotiations Yasser Arafat made the most extraordinary concessions, giving Israel nearly all of Palestine if only they would accept the creation of a Palestinian state, to the point that he was in danger of losing the support of his own people but even this didn't satisfy Israel.

Since then the Israelis have moved to the right politically and hardened their positions even more, maybe the Palestinians feel they are faced with the choice of fighting or losing everything anyway? Despite what some say most Israelis can go somewhere else and for those that think they can't a solution could be found... hardly true for the Palestinians unless you think Gaza or a refugee camp count as "somewhere to go".

In reply to TobyA:


Which is just a cop-out for saying "Israel rules OK!" You may on rare occasions bring out this copout phoney reasonable position from time to time but 90% of your posting against those who criticize Israel by one method or another. All your stated position is really saying is "might is right so we have to accept the status quo"... exactly the position of the Israeli government for decades.

In reply to TobyA:

No it is because 'we' white europeans identify with jewish israelis as white western liberal intellectuals while watching the uncomfortable sight of colonialisms worst excesses. (yeah the bulk of the colonisers are white europeans). Its was probably just like this back at the height of the empire, except a long, long way away.

D

In reply to woolsack:

Why do people care about "proportionate response?"

If you are in a conflict, it seems like it should always be the best practice to make the enemy suffer disproportionately.

How many wars have been won by worrying about keeping a response proportionate?

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility."

John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

In reply to Kai:

We have hopefully moved on a bit since then.

Geneva convention, Red Cross, United Nation Commision on Human Rights, International Criminal Court - ring any bells?

D

In reply to Postmanpat:


I thought it was clear that that is exactly my position - the state of Israel shouldn't exist.


1) When I was a youth and started being told about WW2 and the horrors committed by the nazis against the Jews like many children I imagine I asked naively why it was allowed to happen to which people of my parent's generation who had live through it all replied more or less "well we didn't know what was happening really in Germany". For Palestine I try to do my best to make it impossible for people to say that.

2) A little older, when a student, the question of apartheid was the order of the day, even more so as my university included the Royal School of Mines with a lot of South Africans, mostly hard headed racists but with a few who were equally hard-headed against apartheid. South Africa seemed so strong though and your favourite party supported them to the hilt, it seemed a mouse attacking an elephant, but year after year, by essentially keeping on bashing away, making the whites feel how they were seen by the world a miracle happened and apartheid fell. At the time the sporting boycotts and so on were sneered at by right-wingers but they hit home in the end but who thought this was possible at the beginning?

South Africa was one of the last to go, Israel is about the last remnant of 19th century European colonialism... There has been no blood bath in South Africa, they saw sense, there's no reason why Israel should continue to be a blot on our conscience. However strong it looks now, like in South Africa the extreme violence of it's attitude is a sign of weakness, not strength.

In reply to Kai:



Many wars since WW2. Fortunately, people worked out that the mass killing of a countries population could lead to global warfare, nuclear holocaust and the end of civilisation as we know it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You realise whites browns and blacks all are still in SA. The whites weren't shipped out.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Jesus Christ you're weird. Yes, thats's what I said your position was (twice).

So, I'll repeat my question. Given that you don't think that Israel should exist it follows that anything they do to sustain that existence is wrong. That is the position you consistently fall back on.
So why bother with all the other discussion of whether they're actions are wrong?

>

In reply to Dauphin and Mike Stretford:







I have a hard time coming up with any wars that have been won by a side that was unwilling to inflict disproportionate casualties on the enemy. What are the "many wars since WW2" where this limited warfare strategy has been successful?

The idea of a "humane war" is silly. Wars are terrible. When waged effectively, people die, including civilians. Wars are won by either eradicating your enemy, or making life so horrific for them that they choose to surrender instead of continuing to fight. The result of attempting to fight a humane, proportionate war is that it goes on forever, because continuing to fight isn't such a bad option.

The Palestinians have no realistic expectation of winning the war with Israel but no real disincentive to end the war. The Israelis are not willing to take the steps needed to win because the Palestinians do not pose a serious threat to their national security. So, the war will continue on indefinitely. I guess a state of perpetual war isn't ideal but I'm sure that some folks believe that it's better than the Israelis winning.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Just one more time, if Israel is colonialism, what country is it a colony of? And of course there was a blood bath in South Africa, unless you don't count black people killed in the township wars.

In reply to TobyA:
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism#In_the_Middle_East

Whether or not there is a colonising country, Israel can still be termed a settler-colonial power because of it's actions. The fact that the colonial power is the Jewish diaspora moving into the Middle East doesn't take away from the fact that they still fit the definition.

Obviously there is a list of jewish scholars who disagree...

In reply to Kai:

First strike with strategic nuclear every time for you is it?

In reply to MG:

I think he makes a valid point.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Really! No 'diplomacy by other means' for you?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Also, following Kai's post, youre not really arguing for the annihilation of Palestine are you?

In reply to MG:


Exactly, the system was "wiped off the map", the people weren't massacred. In Algeria, however, most of the French colonisers left, so much hatred had been created by long and deadly war that they couldn't compromise, or didn't want to. To a great extent it's up to the Israeli Jews which model they want to follow.

In reply to TobyA:


I thought you had already agreed that it was a bit like the "Pilgrim fathers", people as a group took over a land to escape oppression. It doesn't have to be a country involved. If you don't like the word "colonialism" think up another one to cover a large group of people, very large in the case of Israel, who have some kind of common link and want to live together somewhere to escape oppression. For the people whose land they take the name you give doesn't make much difference, they are still dead or chased out... That's the bit you don't seem very worried about for some reason which you won't clarify.

In reply to MG:


You (no doubt intentionally) are drawing poor conclusions from my statement.

Strategic nuclear attacks are in some cases warranted. They ended the war with Japan. The atomic bombs not only saved American lives, but likely saved a large number of Japanese lives as well compared with a drawn out conventional war. In the case of the actual conflict between Israel and Palestine, nuclear strikes would be unnecessary. The Palestinians are so impotent and strategically vulnerable, that the Israelis would not need to use nuclear weapons to win the war.

I guess my problem with many of the statements in this thread is the assumption that there are clean, tidy, humane ways to wage war. I don't think that there are. War is by its very nature inhumane, and trying to wage war in a kinder gentler way just prolongs it.

I'm not making any moral arguments regarding who is right or who is wrong in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, in part because I think that which side is "in the right" is irrelevant. You can argue for years about the history of the area and who has a better claim on the land, but the fact is that the Israelis are there and they aren't going away.

If the Israelis are unwilling to prosecute a real war, and the Palestinians are unable to fight a real war, and the two sides are not able to find a solution to the conflict that is satisfactory to both of them, then the conflict will go on forever.

In reply to Kai:


But that's what all colonists say and yet most of them have given in to modern values and either left or come to some kind of compromise agreement with those whose country they settled. The classic example was the British Raj, at it height no one believed it could ever fail and yet a few decades later a movement inspired by a skinny bloke from South Africa dressed in a loin cloth sent them packing.

In Israel's case it only needs it's main supporter to change it's attitude and already the situation would be quite different. If then the Arab states really got together, the Sunni/Shia conflict were to be resolved it wouldn't be far from and oil blocus on Israel on top. It's situation isn't really as strong as all that, nuclear bombs or not.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: "If then the Arab states really got together, the Sunni/Shia conflict were to be resolved it wouldn't be far from and oil blocus on Israel on top. It's situation isn't really as strong as all that, nuclear bombs or not."

And if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle.

Really, the classic example of colonialism that the Israelis are most likely to follow is the United States, Australia, and Canada. Nobody in the U.S. seriously contemplates moving back to the country of their ancestry, and nobody in the U.S. seriously contemplates giving all the land back to the American Indian tribes. (Same for Australia and Canada.) The Europeans showed up, took the land, and stayed. Their descendants really have no interest in packing up and leaving or giving the governance of the country over to the indigenous peoples.

It's highly unlikely that the Israelis will pack up and leave, or give up their ideal of a Jewish state and be subsumed in a Muslim state.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that the Israelis could do that, but why would they? Israel was founded on the principle of it being a Jewish state. Israelis, (even those with "modern values") are still committed to that ideal.

Even if they became somewhat disenchanted with the notion of a Jewish state, the practical issues of safety and security will convince them it's a bad idea to place their future in the hands of a Muslim majority government. Look around the Middle East. The lesson learned from observing the countries surrounding Israel is that minority religious groups have no safety or security. The Israelis aren't stupid. This fact is not lost on them. The dismal situation in post-apartheid democratic South Africa is also a cautionary lesson they can't have missed.

They don't have the same pressures on them that existed in India or South Africa. The Israeli situation isn't worsening, it's slowly getting better. They are increasing their settlements. They are consolidating their hold on their territories. They are enjoying increased security.

Why would they all commit political and cultural suicide? Pressure from the U.S. wouldn't be enough. In fact, if the U.S. stopped all financial assistance to Israel, it would probably be a good thing for Israel in the long run, as there would be very little incentive for them not to go ahead and take steps to put an end to the Palestinian war for good.

You seem to think that the Israelis should pack up and leave, or allow themselves to be absorbed into a Palestinian state. I don't think that many Israelis share your aspirations on this point.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No they haven't. As Russia just now; Morocco, Indonesia and China have all shown post WWII, and the entire Americas and Australasia demonstrate most colonists don't 'go home'.

The decolonization of Africa by Britain at least (and not so dissimilar with the Dutch in SE Asia) was pretty easy because the imperial power didn't do much beyond provide a civil service elite that had only limited connection to the land they ruled over. Rhodesia (and I suppose Algeria and South Africa) shows that where there were white populations who felt more part of that land than some supposed far off "mother country" - the Afrikaners call themselves Afrikaners after all - they didn't leave, they fought to stay and had to be defeated militarily and politically.

Anyway - still no one interested in Woolsack's actual opening post suggesting ISIS is funded by Israel?

In reply to TobyA:

Anyway - still no one interested in Woolsack's actual opening post suggesting ISIS is funded by Israel?

How would anyone outside of intelligence services know this? I'm sure Israel + Arab nations aside from Jordan and Egypt have plenty of under the table dealings, despite all the overt diplomatic nonsense. No Israeli business in UAE and Quatar, yeah right.

I've not research much about ISIS but what I have read and watched seems to be telling a tale that is just unbelievable. Easy for the usual suspects to mix the Joos up in there somewhere.

D

In reply to Kai:

Well, we can only reply what you said. Your initial statement could have been taken 2 ways, but you cleared up any ambiguity with the quote. It obvious most wars the major military powers have been involved with have been 'limited' as their most devastating weapons haven't been deployed.


Straw man.


You are actually dismissing politics and diplomacy here. They are essential to human civilisation.


You are completely mistaken in your belief that some kind of military victory can solve this situation. Israel has won several wars and keeps winning military conflicts. The problem is they can't win the peace. Military occupation of the the Palestinian territories would not stop the killing of Israeli and Palestine teenagers.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

+1

The idea war is always (or even ever) best undertaken all out, no holds barred is childish sub sixth form stuff

In reply to woolsack:

there you go brucey, especially you

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jac...

pls dont reply with a fisk article...

In reply to Dror1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcL9ezWnSSY&feature=youtu.be

The Israeli perspective.

In reply to Dror1:

And I'd put good money on the fact that if Hamas disappeared from the planet tomorrow, Israel would still be treating the Palestinians like shit

In reply to woolsack:

I don't think they did in 1947?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




Have a read of this

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

Doesn't reflect well on proto Israel (or the UK, US or UN)

In reply to Kai:


That's what they would like, of course, but the question is whether the world has moved on since the other countries you mention were set up or not? Apartheid was beaten in South Africa, why not in Palestine/Israel? The earlier series of colonisation have remained but the later series of European colonisation of the 19th century haven't. After WW2 world opinion turned against them and all have fallen except Israel and a few smaller territories and island. Established in 1948, and held ever since purely by violence has Israel got a place in a modern world?

PS. The body count is up to 80 dead in Gaza now, not by accident, deliberate murder using high tech means. I suppose that's ok by you, inevitable?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well not by violence after it signed peace treaties with a number of its neighbours.

You never responded to why Israel doesn't have a place in the modern world but Morocco, Indonesia and China (or indeed Russia now) do.

In reply to woolsack:


As Israel helped Hamas at first in an effort to weaken the PLO and Arafat that's clearly true.

In reply to TobyA:


1) More whatabouting/red-herringing - as usual by your "reasoning" if these countries have acted badly then by your own admission then so has Israel.

2) If you still can't see the differences between each or these situations it's really hard to see the point in discussing political subjects with you

3) For someone who pretends not to be a pro-Israeli propagandist you do a pretty good imitation.

In reply to TobyA:


I'll make a last try: I've just been sent an interesting text which includes this quote from Ben Gurion - I'd seen it before but couldn't remember the exact quote - at least he's honest and admits where his feelings are, you could do the same:

"“In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt… David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that

‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us, ’but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’…

The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality.”

In reply to woolsack:

Herr Wooly.
If Israel dissappeared from the face of the planet tomorrow, the arabs would Still be killing each other. But then you wouldn't bother your arse.

In reply to dek:

Criminality might continue, murder might remain, but you wouldn't have a massive military and a nuclear armed nation raining hell on what is essentially a refugee camp.

As a one-time supporter of Israel, after this week's performance they have sunk to new lows. Most of all it amazes me why Israelis who support this crap are so surprised they are hated. But I guess they're up there with ISIS and bankers in not caring about popularity contests

In reply to dek:


What stops you from refuting the accusation that Hamas or no Hamas, Israel would continue to deny Palestinians equal rights?

In reply to Dror1:


An interesting article. Have you read it? He's quite specific about where he sees anti-Semitism, and it isn't in criticism of Israel in general. I don't agree with him, but I can see where he's coming from and see why he would draw those conclusions. I think there are other reasons that Israeli policies generate the kind of visceral reaction which leads to the very unhelpful analogies about Gaza and so on.

I think that when outsiders see the pro-Israeli position articulated such as in Kai's link, that really adds fuel to the fire. Anti-Semitism is far from the most compelling explanation for the way views of the UK public feel about the conflict are split.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'm not sure exactly what you mean! Equal rights for israeli arabs, or palestinians who are governed by abbas and hamas?
But you know arabs can never see jews as 'equal' humans, right?

In reply to dek:


'Equal rights' would mean ending policies that result in the denial of equal freedoms and access to resources for everyone living in Israel, Gaza and West Bank. A pointless, hypothetical discussion in fairness.


That is demonstrably false. Many arabs and many jews campaign for peace and for both communities to respect each other as equal. While many on both sides attempt to dehumanise the other to justify mistreatment. By asserting that all arabs hold a specific, offensive view, when it is plain for everyone to see that that statement is false, you position yourself as one of those exacerbating the hatred.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Fck me gently, for all the bumtious, patronising crap you post, you don't look up the basics?

March this year!
http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201439161231209704

In reply to dek:

Nothing there about not seeing Jews as equal humans by even some, let alone all, Arabs. Your comments come over as far more prejudiced than any of the antisemitic stuff on this thread.

In reply to dek:



So where do the West Bank settlements fit in with your peace seeking Israel? How do you answer the land grab accusation? Difficult eh?

In reply to woolsack:

Settlements are a problem; the fact that they are built on land legally purchased from the owners obviously confuses things somewhat.

Something that seems to be consistently unreported is that the IDF gives warnings of forthcoming strikes, by firing non-explosive missiles and phoning the targets beforehand. Hamas have been 'discouraging' the targets from taking precautions or evacuating the area. Nice.

In reply to dek:


And how do Israeli Jews see Palestinian Arabs? Some don't even "see" them at all - they don't exist.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


The settlement of Palestine over the last century is the problem, take it away and the problem would no longer exist.


But you are not an idiot, you know that this is untrue, that property rights in the Ottoman empire were quite different from those in the Western world. You also know that at the time of the 1948 takeover Jews only had even these dodgy rights for 6% oF Palestine... they just grew and grew, didn't they?

In reply to MG:


What "anti-semitic stuff" can you see on this thread - serious question, I can't see any. Please don't just reply something like "Well you wouldn't!", I am interested to know what you consider anti-semitic, even if it was posted by me.

Meanwhile here's what's happening on the ground, a father and mother and their 6 children killed by an Israeli air strike in their sleep:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28254980

Am I being anti-semitic to post it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I wasn't thinking of your posts. I won't be explicit because it will degenerate into yes it was , not is wasn't mess.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




I'm sure that is consolation to the poor bastards killed the other night watching the World Cup

In reply to woolsack:


Not tough at all Wooly. The territory is disputed, and even some of the Israeli government agree its illegal (democracy eh?)
There's no garuntee from the arabs it wouldn't be used again for further attacks on the jews, so what's your plan for peace?
BTW who did you say occupied it previously?

In reply to MG:


Not recognising a Jewish state, not now, not in the future. Yep I'm the prejudiced one you have to worry about!

In reply to dek:


Well a) that's wasn't your claim ("Arabs don't see Jews as equal humans") and b) it might be an odd position but in itself isn't wholly unreasonable.

(Is Israel formally a Jewish state?)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, it would save a lot of fannying around with you moral equivocation.
It would be simple to Just state if you support the aims, and objectives of hamas, the Arab league, and all the other ME players in this shambles?
Don't be coy.

In reply to dek:

So Dek, what would be your plan to achieve peace?

In reply to MG:

Okay, I'd expect you to at least do some research yourself.
That's the crux,try putting the onus on the states that refuse to recognise it as such, and why they won't.

In reply to woolsack:


Good question Wooly,try this simple one, pump loads of foreign money into gaza, give them an economic plan.Recognise the 'Jewish' state of Israel's right to exist, co-operate and learn from the israelis how to do it.
What's Yours?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

- many people would consider saying a solution is to destroy a state, presumably while killing many of its inhabitants, to be anti semitic.
What other state would you like to see destroyed? Sudan, somalia, china, saudi arabia, usa? You dont like those countries i assume, since you are a human rights champion, yet dont mind that they continue to exist.




- no, it is not anti semitic to post that.

In reply to dek:

OK that's a good start, how about the settlements in the West Bank?

In reply to dek:




Your interpretation of the political position of the Arab Leagues is that all arabs refuse to accept jews as equal human beings. You can't see any problem with that?

Do these arabs see jews as equal?

http://www.handinhandk12.org/

What you said is demonstrably false.

In reply to Jon Stewart:






- Of course some groups of arabs agree to accept a jewish state (which is not the same as saying jews as equals), however arab countries are not democratic, hence these groups have no say. I do not believe that the arab league would ever recognize israel as a jewish state, as they would like demographic factors to eventually change israel in to a 'non' jewish state.

In reply to Dror1:


This is a completely different topic to "arabs do not accept jews as equal humans".

What is the definition of a Jewish state that Israel propose and the Arab League refuse to recognise? Presumably part of the reason the Arab League take that stance is that they believe Israeli arabs will get a bad deal living in a Jewish state, as well as the motivation you suggest? What are secular Israelis views on the idea of a Jewish state?

In reply to Jon Stewart:



- thats israel is the national home of the jewish people, and not just a country that happens to be there.

Presumably part of the reason the Arab League take that stance is that they believe Israeli arabs will get a bad deal living in a Jewish state, as well as the motivation you suggest?

- no, arab states have not shown much regard to palestinians over the years, and even less to israeli arabs, which have are much better off than their kin these days.

What are secular Israelis views on the idea of a Jewish state?

- the views vary, for myself its not about ideology, i couldn't care less about religion, they are all the same crap to me, my stance is rather based on long term security more than anything else.

In reply to dek:


Why would any normal civilized person recognise a state based on racial or ethnic factors? Racism is out these days in case you hadn't noticed... in fact you yourself often accuse me of racism.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Hi Jon ,
I don't know if you have seen this but it is a good talk, that you might find interesting.
By a man called Miko Peled, what he says might not please right wing Israelis .
youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ&

In reply to Dror1:


I'm not sure that helps. I don't know what it means for a state to be the home of a race and/or religion of people.


Maybe so, I don't know enough to comment.


Do you need Israel to be recognised as a Jewish state, given that you don't care about religion?

In reply to dek:

I'm the last one being coy, I've been as clear as possible about Palestine, it should be returned to the indigenous population. I think this is the position of Hamas too, as I said higher up the thread they recognise the rights of other minorities too, including Jews and christians who were part of the population before the zionist take over started.

In reality the most likely result will be a one state solution, covering all of Palestine, with equal rights for all but definitely not a "Jewish" state and return of all Palestinians, recognition of their land rights and possibly some of the Jewish settlers will be allowed to stay if they recognise the new situation, a bit like in South Africa, but that is for the Palestinians themselves to decide.

In reply to Dror1:


Apartheid South Africa is the recent case that comes to mind, but I've said that already on this thread.

In reply to Dror1:

That's always going to be contentious as it was put in a place people already lived. Having the Arabs 'recognise' the Jewish state is probably something Israel should drop in the quest for peace.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


- oh? What if i bring thirty million arab muslims in to the uk, would you then say it is not a good idea, since the uk is primarily anglo saxon country, not in race but in culture?


- see my comment above its not a racial thing, rather cultural and demographic . Hebrew speaking jews would not give up their security, meaning having an army, and defendable territory.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


-perhaps, but makes one wonder what is at the basis of their refusal.

In reply to Dror1:


Do you feel insecure in Britain? Why should the others feel any differently? For those who come from countries where anti-semitism is still rife a place in a country that will welcome them and has supported them for years could easily be found - ie. the USA. It would be cheaper even in the medium term for the USA and would enable them to rebuild reasonable relationships with the Arab world. I would think that for the majority of Israelis a safe home in the USA would be more attractive than continual war in the Middle East.

The only ones left in Palestine would be the total bigots who are driven by hatred and religious fanaticism.

In reply to Dror1:



It's very hard for me as a Brit to identify with this. Over here, "England for the English" is considered a deeply racist sentiment. But the history, culture and security situation are so different that I don't pretend it's a straightforward comparison. But all the same, it's simply impossible for me to agree with the idea that a group of people defined by their language, culture, religion or ethnicity should have an army and territory on that basis.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You just dodge the question again as always. Anyone can see the differences, but you won't acknowledge the similarity - each of the states listed have seized territory from others states or stateless ethnic groups who had been living in that area before. They then use military force to maintain that control.

It's fine though, I understand the logic of your position. You don't really believe in universal human rights or international law. You just want to see the end of states that you politically disagree with. It's a perfectly logical position; I just profoundly disagree with it. We can leave it there if you wish.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I guess we'll put you down for a no vote on Scottish independence then!

In reply to TobyA:
I hope the scots don't slaughter the English living in Scotland should they get independence.