UKC

Having recently returned from a trip to Jordan (it’s just next to Israel if you weren’t sure) I just wanted to share with you a rather sombre story of how we are all affected by the current ‘situation’ in Israel/Palestine. Regardless of my own personal feelings about who is the victim or aggressor, I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture – death. Death of children; of women and of non-combatant men. These are innocent people trying to make a living in a difficult part of the world.
We were camping not 30 miles away from the Dead Sea. Every night apart from one night I could hear a dull thud every so often. Everyone in the camp could hear it though it was very subtle I naively assumed there was a quarry or a mine close by. The camp manager quickly pointed out what it really was and I’m sure you know what it was too. Every time I heard that thud from then on I knew that people were being killed.
Now, I’m not an authority on the Middle East’s problems, least of all Israel/Palestine’s issues but hearing that noise; finding out that people were dying struck a chord with myself and the people I was travelling with.
Having come back to ‘civilisation’ and hearing the news, articles, YouTube videos and personal opinions of many different people from both sides of the argument, one thing is true above all else – as of 26/7/2014, the death toll for both sides stands at over 1000 (2 of which are Israeli civilians and 40 IDF) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28503420 yet we are seemingly powerless to stop it.
The feeling of impotence is one that resonates among the people I’ve spoken to about the conflict. I am unsure what to do to help other than tell people about my feelings. I hope showing my sadness at the loss of life (innocent lives) will persuade someone it’s not right to just sit and watch the death toll rise with a sense of detachment or indifference due to the fact it’s 1000’s of miles away.
I have one request – don’t take what you read in the newspapers as gospel. Dig a little deeper - the internet is a big place.
Question everything you read and believe nothing without evidence.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I'm actually unsure what those 'thuds' were. Missiles hitting Israel? Israeli gunship attacks?


So maybe it IS time to take sides? Of course we could just sit and watch.....

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Thank you, that was a thoughtful post. I think the problem is that we're all spectators anyway, because neither side seems to listen to external influences and governments tend to stick to their entrenched positions, regardless of current actions.

Is the UN actually fit for purpose?

Martin

In reply to Andy Say:

Only if thou think that one side is in the right and the other in the wrong , or visa versa, which is difficult to think unless you are part of one of the sides (or Bruce).

In reply to Andy Say:


I have one request – don’t take what you read in the newspapers as gospel. Dig a little deeper - the internet is a big place.
Question everything you read and believe nothing without evidence.

Or he could be suggesting we do this ^^^?

It could be beneficial in a way which hasn't yet occurred to me (mainly because I'm doing coursework and eating my lunch while posting on here too).

In reply to Postmanpat:


Edited that for you so it makes sense.

I, personally, think it is pretty damn easy to work out who is in the wrong right now. It's those guys with the big 'f*ck-off' tanks and the Apache strike helicoptors who are targeting schools and hospitals. For me its a 'no-brainer' - as they say.

In reply to Timmd:




But the internet is full of even more misinformation. As an outsider it's almost impossible to find the truth.

Even having been in Kurdistan for the last 2 months, it's hard to know the true situation there with ISIS, because we were in a stable area, even driving through Kirkuk you would be hard pressed to know the situation there.

Re Gaza etc., both sides are guilty of various crimes but they have ingrained issues/agendas/views that will take many, many years to change and I can't see that it'll be us foreigners that effect that.

In reply to maisie:



Personally, Martin, I felt it was so cryptic as to be meaning free. Empathetic but empty.

Sorry to be harsh.

In reply to andyathome:

Well one side's Charter states they want to exterminate ALL the worlds Jews.
The jews are resisting...what part dont you understand?

In reply to Andy Say:

to take sides is to say you agree with the side you take and everything they have done. I cannot say for certain due to propaganda, biased news reporting and the lack of solid evidence to the contrary that either side are playing fair.

In reply to jezb1: The point I was trying to make is to not just base your opinion on ONE source of information.

In reply to dek:



The bit where the the other side takes land and builds settlements it has no right to and then claims that the other side is wrong to resist.

In reply to andyathome:


"Now" being the problematic word, it being impossible to make such a judgement outside the historical context of the "dispute". I can agree that current Israeli actions are wrong but can also see that the other side is and will do whatever it can to eradicate Israel and that is also wrong.

They are both in the wrong and both in the right.

In reply to andyathome:
I apologise if you found it too cryptic. I guess I just don't think it does anyone any favour taking sides - killing of civilians in all instances is wrong. It matters not that they are Palestinian, Israeli or British.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Was that after one side, and its assorted armies, lost territory when it was defeated, trying to wipe out the first side?
But if you mean the 'west bank' that was occupied illegally by Jordan, untill they Jew army ejected them (if memory serves?)
But we all know 'ALL' the world belongs to islam, and regardless of any historic evidence placed under the nose of Bruce, and his cohorts...the jews have to 'move on'

Be he could have saved boring us shitless for ...ever...by looking at the arch of Titus in Rome, which explains the Jews origins in Israel. But he still claims the 'arabs of Arabia' are the indiginous people of israel?

http://atheism.about.com/od/bibleplacescities/p/ArchTitus.htm

In reply to dek:


Yup, like, for example, Japan did in 1945. If memory serves the allies left after seven years.


And was acknowledged as not part of Israel prior to the Israeli capture of it and since deemed by the international authorities that ratified the establishment of Israel as not part of Israel.


Not my view.

In reply to Andy Say:


Yeah - they must be bloody big bangs as the Jordanian bank of the dead sea must be 150 kms from Gaza too? Highclimber, was it definitely the sounds of the bombardment you could hear? The south of Syria and the fighting there might have been no further from you.

In reply to dek:


Could you call it the Israeli army or IDF? None of my Jewish friends have anything to do with it. And then there are plenty of non-Jews serving in the IDF.

I can see why some Jews find something a bit creepy about rabid philosemitism.

In reply to TobyA:



Quite right,apologies, there are many israeli muslim, and Jewish officers commanding in the IDF and airforce, navy, etc.
But I doubt the 'creepy' bit.

In reply to dek:

Have a read: https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/d81t3lcvp7bigdor8c1z

In reply to TobyA:
I was reliably informed by the camp guide that it was coming from Israel, not Syria. Syria's border is at least 2x the distance gaza was from us. We were 30miles to the south east of the Dead sea.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

So, highclimber. Let's cut to the chase. You think we are all being misinformed and that it is impossible to work out who is right and who is wrong. So it is impossible to 'take sides' in the current stramash in Gaza.

And your guide in Jordan informed you that the 'thuds' you could hear were the sounds of Hamas missiles hitting Israel. And you believe that to be true.

Just say what you mean.

In reply to dek:






dek

If you want to convince anyone of the righteousness of your cause you need to reduce the rabid foamings a bit. And make your posts intelligable.

Dror has at last acknowledged that just maybe the actions of the IDF might be a tad over the top.

I sometimes wonder if you are a Hamas 'plant' trying to persuade the UKC audience that all Israelis are really bigoted, blind and fixated on your very own pogram.

In reply to andyathome:

I never said it was impossible to work out who is right and who is wrong. Don't be naughty.

In reply to andyathome:

By the way, the Guide said they were the bombs from the Israelis - I'm inclined to believe him what with them having bigger bombs and all! so Don't jump to conclusions.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
I'm sorry but I do get to choose sides when a country with a yearly military spend of nearly $20 billion decides to indiscriminately and reckless target hospital, schools and United Nation shelters killing upwards of 1500 overwhelmingly innocent civilians. Just because others choose to look the other way and become hand-wringing apologists for these crimes against humanity doesn't mean I have to or will.

>Regardless of my own personal feelings about who is the victim or aggressor, I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture
I'm sure similar sentiments were expressed by Nazi sympathisers in 1939 when Poland was invaded.

In reply to Indy:

Are you really going to make me call Godwin's this early? What's the world coming FFS

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Not my fault the threads on this issue have been splattered all over the forum

Anyway the sentiments stand.

In reply to andyathome:



This is what's been puzzling me about the change of tone on the forums over the years.

I'm sure there's a more civil way you could have asked the same thing..?

Beats me where the agro comes from...

In reply to Timmd:
I've no idea either. I've just been compared to the effing Nazi sympathisers for god's sake!

In reply to Indy:

So I'm an anti-semite for suggesting we don't choose a side and just condemn all killing... Wow! heard it all now.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
It's weird and random.

It's not like it costs anything to politely enquire what somebody means, before giving them hell if they confirm your worst suspicions. ()

That would be progress I reckon.

Just my 2p's worth.

In reply to dek:

We all know Hamas are nutters, thanks for the reminder.


The part where the jews use Hamas' rabid racism as an excuse to slaughter hundreds of innocent Palestinians, clearly demonstrating a belief that their lives are worthless (actions speak louder than words, and you can't get much louder than shelling schools and hospitals). This of course is in spite of the total inability of Hamas to pose any credible threat to the existence of Israel (as much as they would love to).

If you believe what you're told, that the Hamas charter excuses the slaughter of innocent children and the shelling of hospitals then there is no hope. You're inviting hatred of Israel by defending disgusting, immoral actions. The cries of victim-hood and accusations of antisemitism become more pathetic, more spineless, more dishonest and more disgusting with every shell dropped and every Palestinian civilian life lost.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Round of applause.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Is suppose you won't want to have take sides in South Africa either and the apartheid there?

I think you have to take sides, you don't have to hate Jews, you can hate their government. You can hate our government too for not speaking out and you can hate America for supporting the slaughter.

you don't have to dig very deep to know that Gaza has been a ghetto for the last seven years, and that we've done f*ck all about it, except to say "oh that's very bad and Israel should do nasty things." There's no humanity in the government it's all about money and support and buying votes and it stinks.

In reply


What should be done?

In reply to Postmanpat:

We could stop selling them arms to start with?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


And what is the outcome of that? Realistically they get them on the black market.

But let's take it a stage further and say the West stops selling them arms or subsidising them.
In return for what and what is the outcome?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Close our embassy and cut off diplomatic relations for starters. I can't see why we'd want to be associated with a country like that. Of course it would take a brave and very highly principled government to do that unilaterally (so if anyone does it certainly wouldn't be us).

In reply to Removed User:

What are we trying to achieve in doing this?

In reply to Postmanpat:


And we won't be complicit. Point of principle, sending a message, etc.



I'm not sure I really understand the question. What deal would need to be struck? Are you talking about the wider consequences in the region and the strategic underhand motives for propping up Israel and tolerating its aggression? I'm afraid I'm well out of my depth here, all I can offer is idealistic moral stance that we shouldn't be supporting or selling arms to oppressive and aggressive regimes. We don't vote in governments to support actions elsewhere in the world we find morally repugnant.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Jon has pretty much answered your question. It is something we've done plenty times before (Libya, Iran, expelling Russian diplomats) for much less on the basis that it will exert pressure and make them think twice about what they are doing. Cutting off all trade, exports, movement of people. Registering that we won't deal with a state engaged in criminal activities. If it supposedly works for the others it should work for Israel. If ever there was a rogue state...

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So, in real terms , probably not a lot.


The first question is, what are we demanding of Israel? We will stop subsidising you and selling you arms unless you....what ?

In reply to Removed User:

See my question to Jon. What are we trying to stop and what is is our endgame?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Too true.


Lift the blockade on Gaza, and get out of the West Bank. I.e. your actions are wrong, and now you're on your own. What do we lose?

In reply to Postmanpat:


1. Stop shelling civilians in Gaza.
2. Pay for all reconstruction of infrastructure and medical needs in Gaza.e
3. Get the hell out of Gaza.
4. Two state solution based on pre-67 borders (at least).

Of course none of that will happen, but if they are internationally isolated they would have to rethink their strategy. Isolation and sanctions have worked to a degree in Iran.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Well, Israel got of Gaza and ended up where we are now. What do you think will happen if they get out of the West Bank?

In reply to Postmanpat:


They didn't get 'out of' Gaza though. They removed a load of illegal settlers then started making life even worse for the Gazans. Regular sorties of fighter jets flying low over the city at supersonic speeds all day and night (which caused enough stress for pregnant women to miscarry), restriction of movement of people and goods. Gaza is a concentration camp.

In reply to Removed User:






Well, they left Gaza and ended up suffering from suicide bombings etc so imposed the blockade , wall etc. presumably the same would happen on the West Bank. What should the West do about this risk?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't think they will, "facts on the ground" and all that. I just don't want to be complicit, and my argument for us and the US changing our policies is on that basis, not that I expect it to bring peace to the region.

In reply to Removed User:


I'm quite interested in the chronology of this. Hamas fought Fatah and lobbed mortars and munitions into Israel. Do you think if Israel had done nothing this would not have happened?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think I've already responded to your first point. As to what we should do about this risk, ha, the temptation is to say that we should do what we are doing now. Zilch, it's not on our doorstep.

Moving out and not making the Palestinian's lives hopeless would weaken Hamas and give some hope to future cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis. It isn't going to happen in our lifetimes though, too much entrenched ill-will, ultra-nationaism, brutalised generations and topping of religious extremism, all on both sides.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So effectively you are saying that although we supported the creation of the State of Israel we are now washing our hands of it and will accept the consequences: which may be nuclear war or five million refugees/global terrorists?
We are happy to be complicit in this?

In reply to Postmanpat:

There is a more basic point here. Gazans are living in a prison by the sea, their lives are under the control of Israel, they are treated as scum, they have no dignity and no hope at the best of times. Perfect voting base for the likes of Hamas. I'd need to dig for the chronology of events around the withdrawal from Gaza and I've got guests arriving. It's peripheral to the wider context though.

In reply to Removed User:



Look if we and the US abandon Israel there are two likely outcomes
1) the Israelis carry on as now but feeling abandoned and aggrieved and more aggressive.
2) the Israelis call off the blockade at which point Hamas, financed by wealthy local sSates, goes on the offensive to cause mayhem within Israel itself

Which do you want?

In reply to Postmanpat:



I'm not certain I follow. Isreal's got nukes, and is allowed to lie about them, Iran doesn't and isn't, right? So should we stop propping up Israel, what's the chain of events?

In reply to Removed User:


There is a more basic point still, that whatever Israel does, Hamas and other lunatics (there seem to be a lot of them in that part of the world) will try and destroy Israel. It is barkingly naive to think that if Israel (or Egypt ) opened the borders peace would break put, and you know that, so you have to consider the implications, moral and practical of doing that.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Well, as a matter of fact Britain didn't but, fortunately, Hammond is considerably more pro-Israel than the previous.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Oh come on. Forget dual standards with Iran for now:address the problem. If the West abandons Israel it has two choices: fight to the death (possibly using the nuclear option) or emigrate/become terrorists.

Are you happy to abandon the State we were instrumental in creating and accept these outcomes?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


To return to my preferred style, your thinking is matched by your writing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think that your suggestion of simply lifting the blockade and letting the nutters run loose is pretty daft. If peace is ever to be achieved, it will be through a series of deals, and as a result of the nutcase Hamas ideology losing ground within Gaza.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

So, still no view to articulate then Mike? Keep these fascinating contributions coming, they really enrich the debate.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Ok, but the history is surely that the Israelis progressively tightened the blockade and pressurised Egypy to do likewise because no "intermediate status" kept Hamas out? Why do you suppose it would be different if the blockade were progressively loosened?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not proposing a peace plan here(!), I think the situation's intractable for many of the reasons we just discussed.

However "Israel can't lift the blockade, those nutters will just run in and kill everyone" is just a lazy apology for appalling oppression of innocent people. I can't agree with prioritising the protection of Israeli lives from suicide bombers and rockets as so much higher than the rights and lives of the 2 million Gazans. From a moral perspective (this isn't going to happen in reality), the racism and oppression has to stop. Israel needs to find other ways to protect its citizens.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's not a "lazy apology" it's an honest acknowledgement of the facts as opposed to rose tinted idealism. The racism is true of both sides and the treatment of, for example, Christians, in other parts of the region probably gives an indication of the likely oppression of Palestinian domination.

Personally I agree, probably naively, that the West should be more proactive I stopping Israel's intermittent "lawn mowing" exercises like the current one. But that just gets us back to the status quo of six weeks ago which is morally unacceptable but not necessarily more so than the alternative.

Morally it seems to me the right thing for the West to do is to force Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders and guarantee it's security within those, but it doesn't have the leverage with the Muslim world or the trust of Israel to do that.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The dual standards was an aside, I was just clarifying who was going to nuke whom should the west abandon Israel.


I'm not sure I accept this analysis. Surely the UK can withdraw support with incurring Armageddon, even if the US is more entangled? As with the blockade, the US should, in my view, cut the weasel words about "bombing this shelter was indefensible" and act by withdrawing support. Help goes to making peace, support is withdrawn for bombing hospitals and schools. I don't think it's as impossible as you suggest.


Well it was a f^cking disaster, wasn't it?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Which explains why I won't debate with you, our frames of reference are entirely different.

But I still enjoy watching you folk make fools of yourselves.

In reply to Jon


Well of course in reality we know that the US is the only western voice that matters. And yes, I agree they should be more forceful but, as per my last post, it only takes us back to he status quo of May.


There is a certain inexorable logic to Bruce's position, yes.

In reply to Postmanpat:


But it's a bit different when it's racism towards people who have just bombed your home and killed your children, don't you think. Any idea of moral equivalence in such a vastly asymmetric conflict is a smokescreen.


I do not believe that "the alternative" has been explored. I don't belief that it's a binary choice between brutal oppression of every Palestinian or the annihilation of Israel. I think that's Israeli propaganda through and through.


Yes, reasonable.

In reply to Postmanpat:

But the west doesn't have to abandon Israel, they could say, "if you don't stop killing innocent people, we're not going to support you. If you don't find a peaceful solution we won't support you!!"

Your arguments are the same sort that were rolled out about South African apartheid.

If you keep people subjugated eventually you will have to deal with a lot of pissed off people.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I don't know, I haven't got a clue what you believe.


And what are you doing with your dreary personal insults? Showing moral and intellectual superiority. I don't normally resort to this, but I really do wish you'd either speak up with something you believe in, or just f^ck off.

In reply to Cobra_Head:


I partly agree with they but in reality what do you believe is the "peaceful solution"?


Zimbabwe may be a more appropriate comparison.


Yes, but if a significant proportion of those people, backed by wealthy States , are committed to your destruction it is somewhat difficult to find a viable alternative.

In reply to dek:


Move back, move out, or just possibly, if they can accept it and the Palestinians can bring themselves to forgive, live together in a secular, democratic Palestine, for all Palestinians after enactment of the right to return and respect of pre-1947 property rights, but each bomb, shell and missile and each death (1700 now?) makes Arab forgiveness more difficult.

Frankly I don't think many people could forgive the horrors that Israeli Jews have inflicted on the Palestinian people... but that's for Palestinians themselves to say.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


No , the attitude is the same. One side is just currently winning.


Well, the Arab world has tried three (?) times to annihilate Israel in my lifetime and most of it takes the same view as Bruce, whether explicitly or not. If I were Israeli I wouldn't be keen to take the bet. As long as the Arab world is run by unpleasant dictators who need to find an "enemy" yo divert the attention of their people then a real peace is unlikely.

Were Israel to accept withdrawal to the 1967 borders they simply risk ending up in the same situation militarily and politically as now but with no buffer zones. Given the recent experience of Western campaigns in the region how likely are the a West to do their fighting for them?
Not very. They're on their own

In reply to Postmanpat:


Where everyone can live in peace, when digressions on either side are not met with disproportionate retaliation. Where ordinary people can go about their daily lives without fear of being killed.

Remember that Israel kills not only Palestinians, look at the number of photographers and journalists that have been killed prior to the present situation.

A country where it's not illegal for it's own people to mix with palestinians, might be nice too.


I think apartheid is apartheid, Thatcher and her goons were quite happy for it to continue in South Africa.

Again like South Africa it's not impossible for people to forgive, yet I'm pretty sure Israel is only converting the future youth of Gaza to be jew haters, and it's difficult to see how that can't be the outcome.


Again, if the response was proportionate then it might be easier for the people to accept, Your statemnent could be applicable to both sides but again there are double standards, look at UN resolutions against Israel as compared to against Israel. And the support Israel gets is somewhat more than Palestine gets, $8 million per day for Israel.

In reply to Cobra_Head:


That's peace. It's not a description of how you get there.


Yes, it's war. I agree that current Israeli action is wring and probably self defeating.



Actually they weren't. But that's another thread.


Probably, yes.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You should brush up your history, even on the partition vote Britain abstained.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You haven't presented anything to refute my point there, you've just repeated yourself in face of the blindingly obvious facts.


If I was Israeli, I would one of the many who think that the actions of the IDF are disgrace to the world. I would be sick at the horror and killing being perpetrated in my name. So perhaps there we differ.


And this would be an improvement, as there would be some position other than Israel imposed on the land of its neighbours, from which to negotiate.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes I know, but they had long accepted the concept, Balfour etc. They just initially baulked at the reality and then accepted it quickly.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
The blindingly obvious fact that large elements of both sides are racist and have been since long before Israel started bombing Gaza.

No, so would I, as I've implied numerous times when saying current IDF action is wrong and self defeating. Where we differ is thinking that Israel has an option that would end the cycle of violence , short of packing up and leaving.


It would put it in a syronger moral position but probably a weaker negotiating position. Not much to trade if you've given it all away

In reply to Postmanpat:

Perhaps Israel being honest and truthful might help.

I watched this the other day from another thread and found it very informative.

youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ&

Of course with drawing to 1968 boundaries, lifting of the blockade, reparations, and the will to live in peace.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of money being made out of this conflict so it's not in everyone's interest for it to come to an end.

The circular funding of Israel from American back to America should be stopped. Looking at the donations to American politicians makes a mockery of unbiased political debate and independence. Not that we're any better the number of MPs who are "Friends of Israel" and who don't have to declare any donations they receive.

In reply to Postmanpat:


They could had done nothing, how many rockets got through their defence system?

They could take a more measured response to any attack.

Their actions again indicate that one Israeli is worth a thousand Palestinians.

In reply to Postmanpat:
the news has just come on, and Netanyahu has just said that the Israeli action will go on 'as long as is necessary and with as much force as is needed'

and that Hamas will 'pay an intolerable price' for further attacks- which are inevitable. the palestinians have nothing to lose now, a depressingly high percentage now have no home, no job, and a personal connection to someone who has been killed by IDF action. there is no economy in Gaza, no way in or out, and no hope it will ever improve at this stage. why would they stop now?

And there have been 200 Palestinians killed in the last 24 h, presumably this will continue at that level for some time now. At that level, words like genocide start to look less like hyperbole, and more like an accurate decription of the situation on the ground. how long can it continue before it is more widely talked of as such?

A month?- nearly 6000

Six months?- 35000

A year?- 70000.

How would that play on world news?

I asked Toby on the other thread whether he thought this was in fact Hamas' goal now; with no other option, are they actually trying to provoke Israel into genocide to try to destroy its support among Israel's allies and harden opposition from its opponents, and to try to bring back support from its own allies that have turned their backs on it.

If this is the case, then its a trap for Israel, baited with the bodies of the Gazan civilians, and Israel is walking into it.

What can be done? i agree with Jon, its not a binary choice, complete support from the west no matter what israel does, or abandonment to their fate. We should be pressuring America to use whatever influence it has to get Israel to conduct operations without the grotesque indifference to the loss of civilian lives that is currently being seen. they have access to the most modern weapons in the world, and all the time in the world to pick their targets and restrict harm to non combatants.

not to do so harms all in the west who are seen to be supportive of israel's actions- for example, it is likely to directly increase the threat we will face from islamic terrorism in the uk. if i, and others, on this site are so angry at israel, and at the UK political establishment for its supine support of israel's actions, then how angry are young muslim men likely to be? that is a constituency members of which have already cited the palestinian situation as one of the justifications for preparing acts of terror in the UK- by failing to condemn the indefensible, we are not just complicit in the wanton suffering and carnage taking place in Gaza, we are making our own cities less safe.

(for clarification- i am no more suggesting that all young muslim men are terrorists than i am suggesting all Israelis are genocidal)

we should let Israel know there are limits to its behaviour which it should not exceed. this would, as you say, only go back to the previously unacceptable situation, but it would prevent the appalling escalation to full blown genocide which now appears to be happening, and allow both sides the opportunity to back down from the current brink,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Cobra_Head:




Agreed, and still be regarded as pariahs for msintaining the blockade

In reply to Postmanpat:



"Given it all away"? What exactly do you think Israel might have some entitlement to outside those borders, considering that the smaller Jewish population were granted the larger portion of land shared with the larger Arab population? Was the deal not weighed heavily enough in their favour to begin with?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


If the UK just stood up on our own and suggested we implement a trade embargo with Israel I think our standing with the Arab world would be better enhanced and demonstrate we're not an American lap dog.

Quite a few south America countries have spoken out and recalled their ambassadors, we should do likewise and send theirs back too

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I don't. I'm recognising the fact that the obvious negotiating card Israel has to ensure its security is the occupied territory so if a negotiation is to be made let them use it. It's realpolitik.

The real question is whether they actually want or would accept a solution short of them controlling the whole of biblical Israel.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Yes, I suspect they are sowing the seeds of the Hooker solution.



Yes, I agree.

In reply to Postmanpat:

My point is that while Israel steals land from, and denies resources to, the people living around it, it cannot be taken seriously as a negotiating partner. Trust cannot be built while Israel demonstrates this intent.


If they won't, there is no case for Western support. The West has to be instrumental in neutralising that extremist movement within Israel. And arming with nukes a nutcase religious state intent on destroying its neighbours is hardly responsible behaviour, is it?

In reply to TobyA:

And then there are plenty of non-Jews serving in the IDF

Really, plenty, many? A few christians, a few druze ( a sort of all embracing happy clappy church of england (infidel to the muslim mainstream) , shia sect and some bedouin, and maybe the odd Israeli Arab. Why would Israeli Arabs join the IDF in any significant number? They are not obligated to do national service.

D

In reply to Postmanpat:



i'm starting to come to that depressing conclusion too. memories are long in that part of the world, and grudges borne for a very long time.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Num Num's opinion is rather depressing.
There is a mess here, borne out of conflict that will take generations to heal. If not centuries.
Regardless of outrage, internet, media or sanctions.
The hurt is too deep and the tragedy will continue to unfold, regardless of intervention, mediation or military action.
it seems to become a way of life.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Re my comment on the hamas trap being 'baited with the bodies of gazan civilians' - in view of the fact that 'blood libel' is one of the manifestations of antisemitism, this was a remarkably poor choice of words by me, being both unintentionally offensive and failing to accurately develop the metaphor. I withdraw that part of the post unreservedly.

The overall point- that hamas appear to be provoking Israel to the point where their response risks crossing the line into genocide, and that this represents a trap that Israel appear to be walking into- stands however. And my motivation for raising the point is not purely to criticise Israel, but to alert those that support Israel on here to the catastrophic risks that Israel is taking if it continues wiith its current course

Best wishes

Gregor

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

im happy to take sides and condemn the jews.any backlash to what they are doing now to the Palestinians is self inflicted

In reply to Postmanpat:


Sorry but this is simply untrue, for a start read the Balfour declaration, it contradicts itself in a few words of text as it states that nothing should be done which is detrimental to the interests of the indigenous population. It was written to maintain the financial help of the USA and typifies the British attitude all along, opportunist, muddled and constantly changing. Right up to the final cop-out when they played the Pontius Pilate and left Palestine to itself.

You really should read a little about it all.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


And apologise for any offence caused.

Gregor

In reply to mark s:

What even ones living in tierra del fuego?

I pulled up another poster on thw other thread for a similar point about Muslims.

And I've been careless with the way I phrased a point last night

On this subject language really does matter. Suggest you revisit what you posted and be more precise in what you mean,

Best wishes

Gregor

In reply to andyathome:


That's a one word joke!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Is it really any more so in "that part of the world" than anywhere else?

How long has the Northern Ireland/Irish Republic situation been around? Since Cromwell?

The green line dividing Cyprus is only the current state of a centuries old dispute.

The balkanisation of Yugoslavia was always there, just clamped down under Tito and his forerunners.

Even Scottish seperatism, although I hope that gets concluded in a more adult way.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Who speaks for the US? It seems currently that the Israeli government completely ignores the US administration, even the recent leaked chiding by Netanyahu of (probably) Kerry. Clearly the Israeli right loath Obama and the feeling seems mutual, Obama just knows he'll get clobbered domestically if he doesn't mouth the platitudes.

In reply to TobyA:

Actions speak louder than words.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/us-senate-approves-225m-iron-d...

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-264829-Israel-has-received-over-$12...

In reply to Dauphin:

Druze are conscripted just like Israeli Jews (well, in fact proportionally more so than Israeli jews because of the exceptions made for some orthodox Jews). Bedouin Arabs also can choose to serve and many do. I didn't realise that any Israeli Arabs joined up but Wikipedia says a trickle do. Druze and Bedouin soldiers have a very far from "happy clappy" reputation if you ask Palestinians or Hezbollah people.

When I was in Israel in 2007 and also on the news during the 2006 invasion of Lebanon it was interesting how many black soldiers you saw. I guess it was an age cohort thing with the Ethiopian Jews who had come as kids in the 90s being of the right age to do their conscription. Same thing happening here in Finland where you see lots of Finnish-Somali lads in uniform while you didn't a decade ago.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't know if this is flattery but for information I didn't think this up, millions and millions of people throughout the world take it as obvious that Israel, as a state, has no right to exist and Palestine belongs to the Palestinians - I didn't invent it.

I think the problem may be that most posting on this forum live in a fairly closed world in which the acceptable political choices are extremely limited... maybe a little widening of horizons would be helpful - books can help in this and it happens that many books about Palestine, as seen by Palestinians, are available in English.

For example PsP, you appear to be unaware of the various "White Papers" produced on Palestine in the 30s, accepted then dropped, of the Jewish terrorism against the British at the time, of the hanging of the latter and so on... British policy was not a straight line from Balfour to the Jewish military takeover and the declaration of Israel against the wishes of the majority of the population - you should be aware of such simple facts and you would be if you "mixed" a little more.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


So SAY that!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes Bruce, hence my comment "Well, the Arab world has tried three (?) times to annihilate Israel in my lifetime and most of it takes the same view as Bruce, whether explicitly or not"


Oh stop trying to patronise you muppet. Given your consistent ability to misunderstand simple sentences on here I can't imagine that all the books you are so proud about reading have helped your understanding much.


Oh grow up. You sound like a fifteen year old. I don't doubt that you have spent more time reading about the issue.
If you want to argue that Britain had no role in the creation of Israel in order to impress yourself feel free. I'd argue it did although it had different policies at different times but really can't be bothered to dredge up stuff i probably read years ago and have since forgotten in order to make the case. It's barely relevant to the crux of the discussion above.

How come the phrase "wisest fool in Christendom" always enters my mind when you appear on athread.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Yawn.

Wondered how long it would take for somebody to play the anti-Semitic card. Seems to be standard practice whenever Israel needs to gag any scrutiny of its actions and lets be honest when your killing children in the 100's boy do you need to gag scrutiny .

What your desperately trying to do is equate and normalise the random firing of rockets into Israel (which is wrong) with the indiscriminate and reckless targeting of schools, hospital and United Nations facilities which had has killed hundreds of innocent civilians 1832 from the last figure I saw.

Whats the next post? Lord's Resistance Army in the Democratic Republic of Congo isn't that bad, just mis-understood.

In reply to Indy:




FTFY and, No I'm not. think what the hell you want. I don't care too much.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

>No I'm not. think what the hell you want. I don't care too much.

Yes, you ARE an apologist for this one sided slaughter and I know that you don't care because anyone with even the tiniest sliver of humanity and decency would be condemning Israel's sickening brutality

In reply to Indy:

Stop trying to force YOUR opinion on to others.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Touching a nerve am I?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

We all know that what is going on is wrong . But what no one seems to know what path we go down to fix it . As things stand , the outlook for Palestinians is pretty bleak . I'm going to quote Noam Chomsky here , his writing on the situation is excellent.

''Gazans will be left to rot in desperation in the prison constructed for them , which Israel can use for target practice , sometimes resorting to violence to respond to - or often , to incite - mindless criminal acts of rocket firing .
The contention of Gaza militants that the rockets are retaliation for continuing Israeli crimes in the west bank , is not even rejected by the west , because it is incomprehensible : How can anyone retaliate for actions supported by the leader of the Free World ? ''

In reply to Indy:
No, I just find it incredibly childish and outright pathetic you have to criticise me for not taking sides. I should point out that taking sides or not does not preclude one from condemning individual acts of agression namely the attacking of civilian targets.
You have, wrongly, assumed that I am in favour of the Israelis which I find a little insulting.

In reply to TobyA:

Sorry Toby, contradicted yourself there. You're always telling us that this magical Israeli influence doesn't exist. Make your mind up!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:



There are lots of problem spots around the world where not taking sides is a right and proper stance.There are others where it is not. The current situation in Gaza is so one sided, so disproportionate in its responses that no right minded person could do anything other than take sides.

To put this into perspective even the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is condemning Israeli actions in the deliberate bombing of a school as gross violation of international law. The US State Department is saying it was appalled by the disgraceful shelling

UN regional humanitarian coordinator said "330 of the dead in Gaza were children.
We are killing about one child every hour right now."

And you can in all seriousness NOT take sides?????

In reply to Indy: As I said - taking sides and condemning individual actions are independent of each other.

In reply to woolsack:


No I haven't. I've probabl said that its more complex than "Jewish control" that some people seem to believe in. People in these threads keep saying things like "the US is behind it" or the "US could just tell them to stop", but who is "the US"? If you mean the US administration, then it seems the Israeli government isn't paying any attention to them. And then Obama is hamstrung by domestic politics.

In reply to Indy:


What about Syria? 120-160 000 dead - including tens of thousands of kids. Millions refugees and IDPs. Kids dying of illnesses in refugee camps. What side are you on there? Assad or ISIS? Jahbat al-Nusra perhaps?

It ain't a football match.

In reply to TobyA:



But that doesn't negate what's happening in Gaza does it? Why do you think that because it's happening elsewhere that should negate what happening in Gaza. That's very twisted logic.

In reply to krikoman:

It doesn't negate it in the slightest. I was just interested in what side you took in Syria, because you were saying you find it impossible not to take sides in the case of Gaza.

In reply to TobyA:

I don't know enough about Syria to take sides, but I don't think it compares to Israel.

Israel is supported by The US and UK governments, without this support, they would probably have to make peace. We (our government) are supporting the apartheid and the oppression of the Palestinian people. We haven't until recently spoken out against the disproportionate response of Israel to the few Hamas rockets that happened to reach Israel.

There's a massive disproportionality of how this war is being reported too. Look at what happened when they though ONE soldier had been kidnapped. Yet hundreds of children are being killed.

I also can take sided because it's unjust, it's like not speaking out when you see any injustice.

Israel have almost complete control over Gaza, so they have the opportunity to make ordinary peoples life easier.

When Palestine wanted to join the UN you can see what happened and why this situation is different; the US said NO, we, to our shame, abstained!!

I can take sides in the same way I could choose a side in the case of South African apartheid, because it's not fair ( a small word, that doesn't cover the outrage and disgust I feel ).

I also dislike the mis-information we're fed from Israel, the US and our government. I dislike the influence we allow the Israeli government has in our government.

Please watch this it's a little long but explains a lot of things and why thing might be as they are. I have yet to read / see / hear any rebuff to the point Miko makes in his speeches.

http://mikopeled.com/2014/07/28/why-is-the-world-silent-on-israeli-crimes-i...

In reply to krikoman:


The death toll and deliberate atrocities are on a much greater scale in Syria.


I take your point re the US, but I suspect any contribution from the UK is marginal. More than willing to accept evidence to the contrary.


Who are 'they'? It's quite clear that hundreds of children are being killed, and I suspect the missing If soldier is newsworthy due to the massive escalation from the Idf that would result.



They have, but from their point of view any relaxation of border controls etc immediately provokes additional attacks from Hamas.



It is unfair. Events in Syria, Iraq and sundry other places are equally unfair and have a higher body count. I too think the Israeli response is grossly disproportionate, but it's by no means unique.


Is it the Israeli government or wealthy individuals? It's not just Israeli influence that needs sorting out in that respect. I suspect mis-information comes from all sides in this.

In reply to Ridge:

You still seem to be agreeing with me but pointing out what other bad things are going on.

Are you saying I'm wrong to take a stance on this situation?

Am I supposed to keep quite about my abhorrence of what's going on?

80% of Conservatives and members of the "Friend of Israel" I think that's a massive number and might influence their decisions. It doesn't matter what else they are up to and what funds they are receiving from elsewhere, it doesn't make this any better.

I really don't understand where you're coming from, would you rather no one spoke up?

Also, all the other conflict you mention haven't been going for the last 60+ years.

I also believe the fight for freedom might be justified. How many Palestinians are in goal without being charged?

Watch the video.

In reply to krikoman:

I agree the situation is bad, but to me there are no clear cut good and bad sides in this. The Israelis aren't morally worse than the Palestinians, they just have better weapons.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, would you look at Berlin In 1945 and assume the Germans must be supported because the invading Allies were winning?

There are no good sides in this, just bad guys and victims. I'm not going to support one bunch of swivel eyed loons just because their attempts at ethnic cleansing are a bit shit compared with the other side.

In reply to Ridge:

I thougth I was wasting my time!! FFS.

You obviously know nothing then, please watch the link it might explain to you why one of the sides has a genuine grievance and a right to defend itself, and why one side has continually not wanted peace, while wanting the peace process to continue.

If you can refute any of the points in the link, I might take you seriously.

Besides all of the facts, mis-information, falsities, rights and wrongs. Israel is making no attempt to limit civilian casualties, that should be justification enough for taking sides (as you put it) or speaking out.

How many innocents do you kill to get one bad man?

I'm asking for a bit of "fair play" something we British used to be good at.

In reply to krikoman:


To be honest I couldn't care less if you take me seriously. Neither side will live amicably, if it's not dead Palestinian kids it'll be dead Israeli kids. But if you think getting embroiled in the mess will help matters then crack on. As I'm not Jewish, Muslim, Palestinian or Israeli, orthen it's no more my fight than Rawanda, Syria or any other war.

In reply to Ridge:

What a lovely attitude?

You have a voice you COULD speak out against the murder of innocent men, women and children, every one of those kids blown to bits are some mothers whole world.

But it's nowt to do with you is it. But I know your type people who would walk past someone being beaten up 'cos it's not you battle.

Silence is complicity, if you don't lie what you're seeing then why not let people no it's not right.

I realise from what you've written that you're unlikely to change you mind.

But just suppose that your name on a petition was the name that managed to force that killing to stop or for us to stop supplying arms to Israel, but instead you sat on your arse and did f*ck all. That must make you a very proud man.

In reply to krikoman:

'How many Palestinians are in goal without being charged?'

I don't know, do you?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



I don't know exactly, but watch the video from 44:20 to especially 45:35

http://www.addameer.org/etemplate.php?id=359

Estimates 800,000 people imprisoned since 1967, obviously not all of these would have been innocent.

"A child with a stone in his hand, is considered a terrorist"

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.600480

at least 1,000, probably more.

In reply to krikoman:


But only Palestinian kids? The rest aren't newsworthy or photogenic or have good enough PR?


Depends on the context. If you want to use that simplistic analogy then if I'm in a pub and a couple of gobshites have spent the day spitting at each other, lobbing glasses and then start chucking furniture at each other then I'm inclined to leave them to it.




Yes, supporting the Palestinians will bring peace to the middle east, or simply prolong the agony. Or maybe cutting off arms supplies to Israel, (does the UK supply much to Israel?), results in ISIS, Assad and Hezbollah all deciding to be friends again and have a go at the Jews? lots of dead kids everywhere then. But as long as we do something, eh? Make us feel proud.

In reply to krikoman:



I do like the idea that Haaretz has become the go to Jew.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


You could always try the Addameer link above, but you won't.

So carry on not seeing, blame the oppressed and not the oppressor.

Don't blame the country that kils it's own people when they speak out about what's going on. Watch - Five Broken Cameras, to see what happens when ordinary people speak out.

I'm still waiting for anyone to dispute any of the facts in Miko Peleds speech.

In reply to Ridge:


No speak out against all of it, no one said you had to limit yourself.


But this isn't that situation, this is the old woman in the street of a child being kicked by a group, and it's about you looking the other way, not calling the police or ambulance, but going home and having a nice cup of tea.


“Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.” MKG

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

"or" not "of a child"

In reply to krikoman:

Reading the "arguments" on this threads what they boil down to is that even if what's happening to the people in Gaza is atrocious as atrocious things are happening elsewhere then we shouldn't contest what's happening in Gaza!

Not very convincing but typical of people who want, for reasons known only to them, to support Israel but feel they can't before such horrendous acts do it openly at present. Such courageous individuals can only be left to their conscience, arguing with them is clearly useless.

The death toll is now over 1800, they've managed to top the one of what the Israelis so charmingly called "Operation Cast Lead".

In reply to krikoman:


I agree, but you said yourself you don't know enough to speak out (or maybe don't feel an urge to speak out) on Syria. Or Iraq. Or Northern Nigeria. Or South Sudan. Or CAR. Or all the other godforsaken places where innocent people are getting killed. If there is some requirement for Ridge to pick a side here, why isn't there a requirement for you to go and educate yourself on who is in the right and who is in the wrong in the CAR and pick a side there?

That's why I asked what side you are on with regard to those other places. And why I find the idea of 'picking sides' so bizarre. The IDF are showing complete disregard for civilians lives in their willingness to fire on Hamas fighters and rocket teams. I know that. You know that. So it should be pretty f***ing obvious to the Hamas people who haven't yet been turned into red mist by a shell fired by a Merkava. If Hamas didn't want civilians to die they could not fight in the city centres. They could not keep firing missiles into Israel. But they won't because they are 'the resistance'. Perhaps they even have some right or duty to resist. They are definitely incredibly brave and skilled fighters. But they also know exactly what is going to happen as a result of their actions, and that's a cost they are willing to bear, or at least let others bear. So why pick a side? Condemn those who do wrong; try to support those who help the innocent victims.

In reply to TobyA:

I think you have to pick a side, and to Ridge's excuse about not speaking up. What harm is he going to come to by signing a petition? Turning your back is and act of cowardice. So his pub analogy doesn't quite have any legs does it.

As for your comment about Gaza and Hamas not firing from the city centre, how big do you think Gaza is??? it's one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Indeed on Israeli minister has called for more concentration and elimination of the Palestinians in Gaza.

How is someone in Gaza supposed to stop Hamas firing a weapon?

Again I ask how many civilians do you kill to get one bad man?

After all there was only ( although one is too many) civilian death from the Hamas rockets.

Besides all of that, I personally think that Israel is the bully and is in the wrong, together with our government and the US for allowing it to continue and profiting from it. Therefore it's easy for me to pick a side.

You seem to believe the Israeli stance that they were only going after targets where Hamas have fired at them. I don't believe this, there have been too many instances of independent people refuting their claims. Water, electricity and sewage plants have been targeted and we all know about the schools, hospitals and UN safe havens.

As regards your other suggestion about finding out about other conflicts, personally I don't have time to research the situations there, I already knew a bit about Israel.

As regards supporting the victims how would you suggest I could support the victims in Gaza, when the seven year old blockade is still in force, without condemning Israel for not lifting that?

Collective punishment and disproportionate response all make it easy to pick a side too.

In reply to Cobra_Head:



Thank, interesting video. Certainly difficult to see any two State solution succeeding. Not sure how we get to the one state alternative.

In reply to TobyA:



I agree.
It seems that in being told to "pick a side" the only side that you are not "allowed" to choose is the side of the innocent civilians in Gaza.

In reply to Cobra_Head:


So which side are you on in CAR? Anti-balaka or Muslim? And South Sudan? You down with the Dinka or bigin' up the Nuer?


I know exactly how big Gaza is. They used to fire from the farmland across the fence from Sderot. The Israeli counterfire killed a few farm workers and once, I remember, some kids who were playing in the fields, but nothing like what we're seeing now. What it did mean though was that soon enough rocket firing became virtually a suicide mission for the firing teams; the counter fire was so fast and accurate. IJ, PFLP (and presumably even Hamas - although they were mainly trying to stop the rocket firing at that point) could have kept firing from the fields but it became to dangerous for them. So they made a sound tactical military decision to not get killed as much and fire instead from in the cities. This is a pic I took looking into Gaza in 2007 from the NE corner of the border with Israel - https://www.flickr.com/photos/toby-northern_light/1397679041/in/set-7215760... Sderot is behind me, and you are looking over the border fence towards Gaza City (well Beit Lahiyha and Jabaliyah are closest I guess). The few kms of empty looking farmland between the fence and the city was where the rockets were mainly being fired from at the time.

Hamas doesn't fire rockets from within the towns because it HAS to, it does so for sound military reasons that it is easier and safer for their soldiers to do so. But that is, horrifically, not true for the residents of Gaza.


Now? I have no idea. I'm sure they don't either which is the tragedy.


So those kids dying don't matter? I suspect you don't really think that, but perhaps all of us by our actions do think exactly that.


Condemn away - not sure what good it does though. I've actually argued with Israeli diplomats about the blockade as being both immoral and self defeating for them, it does leave you with a rosy glow although I suspect doesn't do much beyond that - nevertheless, if we all raise our voices - straw that broke the camel's back etc. BUT the main thing is don't use that as an excuse for not putting your hand in your pocket for the groups like ICRC, Save the Children or Oxfam who are in the Gaza strip doing humanitarian work. And if you've got time not money spare, volunteer for your local red cross or similar, freeing up their resources or fundraising for international work.

In reply to TobyA:


I don't have enough knowledge to choose, or maybe not choose. This doesn't negate my choice with Israel. I don't need to reiterate my reasons I did that earlier. I still don't know what you expect me to say,"your right I can't choose which side to be on in CAR, so carry on Israel kill as many as you like", is that what you're after?


So because they can't stop them, they deserve to die? Or should Israel only fire on confirmed targets and be more discriminate of the people they are killing?



Again why does one negate the other, supposing two kids are drowning in a river but I can only save one, it doesn't mean the one I leave to die deserved it or that I shouldn't save one of them.


I'm not sure arguing with Israelis is the way forward, I think sanctions and pressure from outside will probably be better, though I'm not certain of this obviously. The only thing we have to compare this situation to is South African apartheid.

I found it rather boring to be honest, there's lots of other ways I could spend my time.


If you stay silent when you a aware of a wrong then you are complicit in perpetuating that wrong.


Nobody said I didn't put my hand in my pocket, that's exactly what I did do. I've also taken time to write letters, sign petitions and do whatever I think I can do.

I originally went on the protest march to show my support, I did try to talk myself out of it, thinking I would just send some money. I ended up doing both. Regardless of whose side you might want me to be on or if I've chosen the wrong one, it's external forces that are going to make the difference in Palestine. If enough people can change the American military support for Israel then things might just change for the better. After all what's been tried so far is definitely not working.

In reply to off-duty:



Hence why I am stying out of choosing which side to condemn or support. Support gaining a workable solution - utopian I know but saying 'they did this' or 'they did that' gets us absolutely nowhere.

In reply to Cobra_Head:


Of course it doesn't. I'm just trying to work out why you think (well, it wasn't you originally - it was other chap) you have to "pick a side" in this war (but not in others). I don't think you have to in this war - both combatants are wrong and putting their desire to fight each other over Palestinian civilian lives.

You do though get left with the feeling that if there isn't extensive and bloody coverage of conflict in the mainstream media - TV pictures in particular - conflicts are very easily ignored. I've listened to quite a lot of good reporting from the BBC on CAR for example, but if its a short documentary that ends up on World Service's podcast feed, as opposed to leading the 10 o'clock TV news, it seem that people simple don't know and then aren't very interested.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


But one side is still doing what it's been doing for the last seven year; blockading and effectively imprisoning over 1 million people. So when Israel thinks they've killed enough people, do you let them go back to the status quo and keep the blockade in place and let them continue the grabbing of land.

Or do you speak out and say enough is enough?

In reply to TobyA:


Like I said before, I maybe would pick a side in the other conflicts, if I know more about them. To me this conflict is very one sided and it's no different to the bully in the playground or shouting for the underdog in a boxing match. Trite analogies I know but when one side has the most powerful nation in the world backing it, while simultaneously ignoring the rest of the worlds condemnation (the UN, mostly). While also doing everything they can to prevent the Palestinian nation from existing (remember the UN vote in which America voted No and we and most of Europe abstained. Then there maybe a bit of an imbalance here that needs addressing. This is why I can take sides. Just looking at the numbers killed on each side might let you know that there's something not very even about this conflict.

In reply to krikoman:

We condemn illegal acts of aggression. we search for an end to innocent deaths. This doesn't mean we have to side with one or the other.

In reply to TobyA:

I do wonder whether the Israeli policy of targeting Hamas leaders could be counter productive.

During the Cold War it was axiomatic that you wanted the other side's leaders to survive, so you would have someone to negotiate with. The troubles in N Ireland were brought under control when the recognised leaders, McGuiness, Adams and so on - began to negotiate. With the heads of Hamas constantly being cut off, who is actually in a position to give assurances and actually be able to implement them?

In reply to Postmanpat:


There isn't an acceptable alternative to lifting the blockade. The only question is when and how it is best achieved.

Confining millions of people in a concentration camp, devoid of freedom, hope or opportunity, periodically brutalized by random violence and forced to live under the rule of brutal extremists is simply the most destructive thing Israel could possibly be doing. You couldn't imagine a more perfect way to perpetuate conflict, to create an unwinnable war with an endless stream of genuinely aggrieved people who have nothing left to lose and nothing to look forward to if you'd sat down with the intention of designing it. It's insane and our support for it is disgusting.

jk

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Seems that someone in the cabinet is prepared to take sides, Baroness Warsi has quit as Foreign Office minister over the governments pathetic stance on Gaza.

At last, a politician with balls

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28656874

In reply to jkarran:




And these bastards have even calculated exactly how many calories is the absolute minimum for the Gazans to get by on: 2279 calories per person per day.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n15/mouin-rabbani/israel-mows-the-lawn

In reply to jkarran:


If by brutal extremists you mean Hamas it is worth noting that they do have an extensive social support program. Its a fairly major part of why they are actually popular in Gaza.
Classic religious charity for power manoeuvre.

In reply to woolsack:
I'm not sure there's any evidence that Israel have actually been restricting calorie intake directly. If there is then fair enough, it should be condemned but I don't think spreading falsehoods help the situation.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


There is, I posted a link to it quite recently if you can be bothered to link - they even cut it down quite recently for some reason.

In reply to dissonance:

Many political movements combine social programs with their other activities, first they need to gain the support of the people and when people are in the shit they tend to look well on those who help them - the Muslim Brotherhood, various Christian sects including Catholicism, Communist Parties and left wing parties of all sorts and even in a rather weird way nazi parties all acted like this.

What is striking about the majority of people in the West is that:

a) they refer to the Hamas as the bad guys in very strong language, and

b) the mostly support democracy.

So given that Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza they should see at least a slight contradiction here, but they don't seem to.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Don't be fooled, Hamas is a totally extremist organisation. Watch some Al-Aqsa video on youtube if you are not convinced, they are mental.
On the Israeli side unfortunately they are led by exactly the same kind of nutters, who were also democratically elected.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

We don't have to no, but I'm choosing to, in the same way that I might choose a side when I see an uneven fight in the street, the same way I chose sides in South Africa against apartheid.

“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
― Elie Wiesel

Elie was a holocaust survivor, his comments don't always translate to living peacefully with his neighbours though.

Just because I'm choosing sided doesn't mean I want the other side to die, which is what you seem to be implying. Peace is the ultimate goal, but for peace there needs to be freedom, equality and fairness. All of these thing denied the Palestinians.


And the UN has condemned how many illegal acts by Israel? To what effect?
By protesting ans saying enough is enough, we, the people can make a difference either through changing our governments policies of simply boycotting Israeli goods and companies. Change will come. The sad thing is Israel are masters of propaganda and buying influence, they also usually know whet they've gone to far. I hope this time the world opens it's eyes to see what's happening and doesn't forget after the ceasefire.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What contradiction are we supposed to see Bruce? Can we not accept that while democracy tends to be one of the better forms of government regimes will from time to time get elected that we cannot fully support?

jk

In reply to Cobra_Head:


It wasn't my analogy to begin with, but we've moved out of the pub and cheering on a couple of boxers now...

FFS..

In reply to Ridge:
You know what Is said either that or you are trying to act a bit thick or maybe something else.

For a start by taking a stand here, and maybe signing a few petitions or shouting in the street, you are hardly likely to get a bar stool thrown at you. Secondly my analogy was one of supporting the underdog, which I'm sure you knew but chose to ignore.

I might remind you that while you a busy trying to find a way to convince, hopefully just yourself, what is not worth trying to do anything because it's not worth bothering about, children are dying.

I saw a picture yesterday of a little Palestinian girl about 8 years old. She was in two parts separated at the chest,it wasn't her fight either but she didn't have the luxury of doing f*ck all.

So f*ck your and you shit attitude and your attempt to troll, you're a disgrace.

In reply to krikoman:

In all seriousness, my point was this shouldn't be likened to some contest between good and bad with analogies about school bullies and the like. It's a big, bloody mess that won't easily be solved by refusing to buy melons or signing a petition that potentially encourages Hamas or other organisations that might think provoking more dead kids is a way to advance their cause.

Anyway. I don't need to convince myself about anything, thanks all the same.

In reply to krikoman: I'm not totally sure, but I have a feeling that Ridge was a UN peacekeeper in the Balkans. We asked our soldiers to risk their lives there to try and stop the killing, which they did as best they could within their mandate, and some died doing it. I don't know if you've done similar but it's always something to think about before you get on your moral high horse and throw insults.

No one here wants kids killed, do they. The discussion here was about the idea of picking sides or not.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I know but it is something the religious organisations are particularly fond of and tends to irritate me when its dressed up as charity rather than recruitment.
Its depressing though that people seem to ignore the fact Hamas are rather more than just a bunch of terrorists.
Regardless of your thoughts on Hamas, I think our views differ somewhat, ignoring a major reason why people support and vote for them isnt going to be helpful.

In reply to RomTheBear:

In Israel and Gaza extreme parties have been elected but it is only in Gaza that people decide not even to discuss with those elected, treat them as pariahs. There is another difference, the situation in Gaza is rather different to that in the Israeli zone of Palestine, no freedom, total domination by another country, disgusting living condition, closed borders and always the fear of a shell killing you and your family and so on.

It's hardly surprising that such extreme conditions lead to extreme solutions. Previous attempts at electing more moderate parties did nothing to help their situation - the same can't really be said of Israel, they have a fairly prosperous life style for the Middle East, so much so that many Europeans are still moving there, I saw some French people on the telly just the other day preparing to leave the tranquillity of France to go and live in what is still a war zone.

So if both have elected extreme governments only one is barely surviving in atrocious conditions.... and ironically it's the the one who is in the right!

In reply to krikoman:
>

So why is it that you appear to object so strenuously to people wanting to be on her side and insist they align on the side of Israel or Hamas?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I'm surprised you didn't put a smiley at the end of your little piece.

Without in any way condoning what the IDF has done, let's look at a couple of other differences shall we. The 'government' of this appallingly impoverished state, beset by shortages of every kind, has nonetheless spent literally millions of dollars building effing tunnels - these aren't the sort of things that kids build, this is serious infrastructure - with what end? To protect their population? To smuggle in vital supplies? No. To enable them to kill civilians. That's it. To their 'credit', Hamas have never made any secret of the fact.

In reply to off-duty:

To be fair I don't think he was saying this and I agree with him.

Of course we're all on her side, but it was Israel that killed her, they had the choice not to fire into such densely populated areas. If you want to go back further they had the option of lifting the blockade and not keeping Gaza as a ghetto.

On a wider note Ridge did say he wasn't Jewish, Muslim or something else so it wasn't his fight. Which did sound a bit uncaring.

A bully is a bully whether it's a government of a kid in the playground.

How would you suggest you voice your displeasure with the situation?

I've been on the same protest a Krikoman by the sounds of things. It wasn't just about Israel, it was directed at the BBC and it's one sided reporting, it was about our governments silence and complicity in supply arms and abstaining from UN votes.

It was a way of being heard, of saying we've had enough! I did write to my MP who simple spouted a load of shite which said how bad Hams was and didn't seem to recognise the situation at all.

I understand his (Krikomans) rational about fairness but it does seem to be a strange word to use, though I can't think of a better one either.

If everyone just sat on their hands do you think this would help the situation?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Where's your costings on how much they spent?

They been using tunnels to smuggle food and medicines in to Gaza through Egypt for a long time before the Egyptians fell out with Hamas.

Why were the tunnels to kill civilians? Might they not have been to kill soldiers?

Again you don't seem to mind the dis-proportionality of it all and seem unable to see that keeping a people repressed is going to piss them off.

Remember Nelson Mandella was once a terrorist, who the suddenly was the darling of every politician in the world.

I'm not suggesting you have to choose side or do nothing, what I am saying is that I have chosen to be on the side of the underdog. I think a lot of people feel the same. Everyone chooses their own path, I've chosen to try and make my voice heard the best way I can. I'd rather try than do nothing.

In reply to off-duty:


I think it's simple. While Hamas are bonkers, use immoral tactics and contribute hugely to the suffering of Palestine, the bottom line is that Palestine has a genuine grievance and Israel is the aggressor.

And while Hamas use immoral tactics, they are ineffective, whereas Israel has actually bombed the shit of schools/UN shelters and hospitals and countless homes.

So on balance, considering both motives and actions, it's very easy to take sides, even though both show immorality. To fail to recognise Israel as the aggressor, considering its oppression of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, is wilful blindness; a constructed, distorted view which fits with a facile philosophy of 'democracy' vs 'terrorism'.

In reply to Cobra_Head: The really, really big problem that I have with all this is that I genuinely believe that if Hamas stopped firing rockets at Israel tomorrow not another, single Palestinian would die a violent death at the hands of the IDF. Worse (or better) still; given a year of peace Israelis would be employing Gaza inhabitants; Gaza would be importing Israeli goods; and before you knew it there would be border that as porous as a EU one.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think it is reasonable to say that Israel are acting in a grossly disproportionate, aggressive and immoral, if not wicked, way.

Simultaneously Hamas are acting with such a degree of wicked stupidity, that it is almost believable that they are deliberately trying to get more civilians killed.

The actions of Hamas in no way excuse the behaviour of the Israelis, but neither do the overpowering actions of the Israelis in some way justify the utterly futile actions of Hamas.

Supporting humanitarian (and neutral) aid to the Gazans, lobbying/demanding the Israelis to cease and withdraw, whilst simultaneously not accepting or supporting the actions of Hamas is the tightrope I would rather tread, than support one adversary in preference to the other.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

but Rob, is that not what Fatah did in the West Bank?

did that stop the expansion of settlements or improve the day-to-day experience of life there?

did that stop all deaths of palestinians at the hands of the IDF?

Toby can probably say with more certainty than me, but from my reading of the situation, i dont think it did.

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


What a load of bollocks. Israel would carry on with it's steam rollering, business as usual. Only it wouldn't be so obvious. Without the excuse of the Hamas terrorism it would have to be a lot more subtle in it's brutality, oppression and violence so as not to annoy it's various paymasters. Without Hamas it would probably create some other excuse, some other enemy.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


On resistance, the people of Gaza are in favour of resistance, just as many in France were despite the nazis executing 30, 40 or 50 civilians rounded up at random for each German murdered by the Resistance. It didn't stop the French supporting the Resistance, nor of French today looking on the Resistants as heroes. You seem to have difficulty in understanding that oppressed people develop this will to resist oppression and fight back anyway they can. I suppose you would collaborate?

In reply to off-duty:


I think to frame the conflict as between Israel and Hamas is dishonest, because the fact is that Israel has been bombing Gaza, not Hamas. That Israel are apparently "surgically" aiming for Hamas, yet "accidentally" bombing schools, hospitals, homes, children on beaches, sheltering civilians, etc provides sufficient justification for me to say that this is a conflict between Israel and Palestine. And in that conflict, considering both actions and motives, Israel is the aggressor.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yes, I believe that too. That's certainly how it was when I was in Gaza.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yes, all Israel wants is peace (and the West Bank, and Arabs to live as second class citizens).

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


There are reports that the rockets were in retaliation to an air strike which killed as child, obviously I can't verify this.

But Israel is killing it's own Jewish people, watch "Five Broken Cameras" so it appears to me that just speaking out against the Israeli government makes you a target. You don't have to be Palestinian.

In reply to off-duty:


And what do you do when the Israeli blockade turns back your aid or keeps it until it's useless?

In reply to TobyA:


I have mates you were in the Balkans to and a few of them are still suffering, but not one of them has intimated that this isn't their fight.

As regards my moral high horse, it's not a very big horse is it. We all have the ability to do something. The actions of our "something" will have consequences for us doing it. From the mundane to the serious; I go on a march it costs me money which we can ill afford, I maybe go to Gaza and volunteer over there; I might get killed. I sign a petition that might make our government think about the arm deals it's doing with Israel, It takes 2 minutes of my time.

I have chosen to take sides in this for a number of reasons:
I don't see how I can make my voice heard by not taking sides?
Could I go on the protest march in London and not be classed as taking sides?
I happen to think that Israel is the aggressor and that they have little regard for other peoples lives.
They kill and imprison their own people should they chose to protest?
The whole Israeli state is supported, I believe unfairly, by the US. This support is bought by lobby groups within the US, and the UK. This I believe is an affront to democracy.
I believe that Israel's actions have been massively disproportionate, and I'm ashamed that our government wont come out and say that.
I'm also sick to death of being called racist / anti-Semite when I've chosen to speak up. I'm a humanist if you need to put a label on me. I see pictures of kids being killed and wonder how people can let this happen.

I seem to have been vilified because I have chosen a side, now I can understand that if you are really with Israel but would like the slaughter to stop, then you might want a system where you can not pick a side. But isn't that just to ease you internal conflict?

My attempts earlier at analogies were not meant to trivialise the situation, and only a few people took them that way. The were made to point out that, from my point of view, I usually side with oppressed, with the underdog or with the innocent. Turning you back when someone needs your help, no matter what you've done in the past, doesn't help anyone, least of all yourself.

I haven't done much, I've been to London to shout in the streets, I've signed a few petitions, I've tried to get as many people I know to help out in some way and I've sent some money to charity. In the scheme of things I've done f*ck all. But I haven't done nothing.

In reply to krikoman:

Out of interest, why is it this conflict that prompts you to do something? Or do you protest similarly about ISIS, Syria, Sudan and numerous other (more bloody) conflicts too?

In reply to MG:

Let's get this oldest of conflicts sorted, one at a time?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The idea that without Hamas Israel would make peace is clearly nonsense as before Hamas came along Israel was not at peace with the Palestinians, as anyone old enough to remember will tell you (not "you" personally!), they were fighting with other Palestinian organisations, Yasser Arrafat was in his bunker surrounded by Israeli tanks at the time. The Israelis actually encouraged Hamas at first in order to weaken the OLP.

Coming up to more recent times there have been many well argued articles suggesting that this recent attack was not because of the three Israelis murdered, murdered being the correct term as the Israelis knew they were dead quite early on, the pretence of their kidnapping kept up to justify an operation that was already planned. The Hamas rockets were in reply to the murder of two Palestinians just before, in fact each act is the reply to previous acts anyway.

The reality is that Israel has been very unhappy for some time because of the agreement between the two main Palestinian organisations, Hamas and PLO this spring:
http://www.ansa.it/ansamed/en/news/nations/gaza/2014/04/23/hamas-and-plo-an...

They have had a classic divide to conquer policy which enabled them to avoid any advances towards an agreement with the Palestinians for decades, playing on the divisions within the Palestinian camp with ease. Their real policy is to keep half bottled up in Gaza while nibbling away at the other half in the West Bank with colonies, roads and walls until a viable West Bank as part of any State of Palestine becomes impossible, which may well already be the case.

This enables them to keep their Western backers on line, while keeping up an appearance of negotiating and holding the natives down. Hamas is the excuse, before it was Arafat, the PLO or Mohamed Tom Cobbly and all, the present violence is an attempt to break up the agreement between Hamas and the PLO which could change the ball game a bit.

Anyone who disagrees has only to look at the events since 1948, wars, aggressions against their neighbours, against Palestinians, never peace, Israel doesn't want peace they want to work steadily towards their Greater Israel, their Jewish homeland, no matter how much blood is shed in the process.

In reply to MG:


Out of interest why do you, Toby and just about anyone who even half supports Israel continually ask this same question as if it had the vaguest relevance?

As if these conflicts were as inter-twined with our own history and culture in the same way Palestine is? Do you really think it has the slightest influence in the debate?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I don't generally on these threads as I can see separate discussions are needed. However, it is an curious question why we get so emotionally involved with what in the scheme of things is a not very bloody, albeit long lasting, conflict.


That's probably a large part of the reason, rather than concern about deaths as such.

In reply to MG:

Speaking for myself, my interest in this conflict more than others is largely to do with the role of the West, the propping up of the aggressor by the US, and the sickening lie of "Israel's right to defend itself" trotted out every night on the the TV. When some brutal regime is oppressing its own people or its neighbours elsewhere in the world, you don't normal get some Tory prick in a suit on Newsnight cheering them on.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yes me too.

I find the emotional appeals a bit hollow. Yes it is horrendous that children are being killed but rather less horrendous than the goings on in many other conflicts around the world. The Israeli hypocrisy and lies and our historic and current entanglement with Israel are the distinguishing factors. Along with the whole thing being at the centre of bigger geo-political questions.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:





Compelling and supported by evidence.

In reply to MG:


Thought I'd answered that in my post at 10:04

In one word because it's UNFAIR.

There are lots of reasons, see above.

But I don't see any difference between this and apartheid.

I hate the bullshit that we're supposed to swallow, Israel is only defending itself.

The one-sidedness of the conflict, Israel seems to do what it wants, the UN issues a ticking off, the US vote against any resolution, the status quo is maintained.

Our government not having the balls to do the right thing.

I'm sick of keeping quiet and being passive. It's not something I've enjoyed, I have a million other things I could be doing. And quite frankly protesting in London and writing letters to MPs is rather boring. But then I guess hiding from bullets and shells can be rather boring too.

But I also feel, perhaps stupidly, that I might just make a difference and instead of just giving money to a charity and say,"please go and sort this out for me". I have this time decided to do both.

I'm obviously limited on what I can do, my family comes first, but I really didn't see doing nothing as an option.

I tried believe me, the problem is I knew once I started I'd get "involved" I know myself well enough to know that.

I've done bit and bobs before, Ban the Bomb and all that.

So all of that, and then I don't know. Why do we fall in love with a particular person, why do we like some bands and not others? What's my favourite colour.

I really don't see the question has any relevance, apart from a psychological view.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:








Well said.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

This bloke sums it up for me why I'm choosing to speak out.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10154412567475024

Hussar!!!

What a hero. < Doffs Cap admiringly >

In reply to krikoman:



A fine speech and eerily he covers pretty well every point that has cropped up on the various threads on ukc, dealing with the "whataboutery" accusations perfectly.


PS. Coming back to the ISIS, Congo etc whataboutery have none of those putting this forward noticed that Cameron and Co. are not actively supporting ISIS and the others... that makes a difference too.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



They're not actively supporting Israel either.

When discussing the rights or wrongs of what is going on in Israel, I think your charge of whataboutery is reasonable if people bring in other conflicts - whether Israel/Hamas are right or wrong is largely independent of what is going on elsewhere.

However, when discussing what to do and using the horrors of Gaza as an emotional appeal to action, I think it is reasonable to look elsewhere and ask if our efforts would be more effective in places where there is yet greater suffering. For example, you said something about your chest getting tight when you learnt about a 1000 deaths in Gaza, what sort of reaction do you have to 25,000 children about to die of thirst?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28663926

If we are taking action on humanitarian grounds, surely the "biggest bang for our buck" should be the priority? Of course we aren't primarily interested in Israel/Palestine for humanitarian reasons so we this isn't our priority, but we should be honest about this.

In reply to MG:


No?

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-07-09/prime-minister-uk-staunchly-suppo...

That's from the start of this round, but I wasn't aware that his stance had changed (espec in view of Warsi's resignation).

What about the arms we sell them to conduct these atrocities?

In reply to MG:





Exactly. The outrage at Israel behaviour is justified but let's be honest, this is not about humanitarian reasons. It's politically motivated.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Rom, with that last comment, you appear to be joining the ranks of the many people sniping at critics of Israel, and calling into question their motivation. it now seems to be the default tactic of the pro-Israel camp- from the sniping at Baroness Warsi in the media (miffed at not getting a promotion- 2 years ago!- apparently), to winhill's accusation on another thread that 99% of criticism of israel is motivated by racism.

it is a clear use of the ad hominem fallacy to avoid having to address the point- which is Israel's utter disregard for the safety of the civilian population Hamas bases itself within. far easier to attack the messenger, than try to defend the indefensible.

plenty of people have, over multiple threads, explained why this conflict elicits the emotional response it does, while others don't, for reasons that are absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism.

these include Israel's hypocrisy in claiming the moral high ground, as a democracy, while inflicting wholesale terror on a civilian population; well, if Israel wants to be treated like a western democratic nation, there are certain norms of behaviour that need to be observed, and not using heavy bombardment of densely populated urban areas to try to deal with a law enforcement problem is one of them. israel will be held to a higher standard than fundamentalist insurgents in Iraq, because it claims to be a country which espouses the same values that we hold.

they also include the exposure to the conflict on the news- people's stories do elicit responses in the way that statistics don't- especially ones that are too horrific to process. 25,000 dead kids- if i really, really took that on board it would be unbearable. so there is a degree of denial of horror that is on a scale that is too great to comprehend.

the fact that palestinians generally speak good english and so can directly give their testimony, and that the seem just like people we see in our day to day life help identify with their plight.

and also there is the fact, as others have pointed out, that our government is not directly supporting extremists in iraq, or separatists in Ukraine- but according the bbc today, Israel is the biggest export marked for arms for the uk. there are things we could do in this case, whereas in Iraq and syria that seems to be doubtful.

i do wonder if the repeated use of ad hominems against critics of israel, and the failure to acknowledge explanations for criticism across multiple threads, is a way of resolving cognitive dissonance for some people. not suggesting thats the case for you, Rom, but when some posters appear ignore these responses and repeat accusations of racism being the reason that this conflict generates a response, it starts to look like a viable explanation,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to MG:


Well they are, apart from trade and arms they said right from the beginning that they supported Israel, the very slight change of late is down to pressure from the British public and from within their party and coalition.

On the other hand I'd be very interested if you can produce any support given to ISIS and the other areas listed just above. This changes everything, if Cameron did state he supported ISIS etc then it's pretty sure a lot of people would react to that too.

As for the question of whether it is on humanitarian grounds or for other reasons, who has stated on these threads that their concern is on this level alone? Is there any reason we should only react on this one motive? Other motives are just as valid and each individual acts on his own motives, as you do. Don't forget that Israel is presented as a democracy, is part of the Western world, has numerous cultural, educational and scientific link so what it's government does is on a totally different level to what armed bands or corrupt governments in the middle of Africa may do.

Some people may decide to militate in favour of a greater awareness of other causes, good on them, but at the present time, given what has been done over the last few weeks, it is totally dishonest to pretend to be surprised that many of us are particularly effected and mobilised on the issue of the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza just now.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Would you like to clarify what you mean by "politically motivated" and how this is any less important and valid than what you call "humanitarian grounds"? Is being against deliberately blowing up hundreds of children with high tech artillery "political" and therefore somehow reprehensible?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Absolutely, well said Bruce.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

We need a like button

In reply to MG:



Why isn't an emotional response sufficient? Surely any response that either makes someone do something is a response, which has to be better than doing nothing.

I doubt someone who gets to live in peace or gets freedom or gets fed isn't going to ask why are you doing this because if it's on emotional grouds you can poke it up your arse.


Peace is peace and whether it's political, emotional, a result of sanctions or economic pressure it's still peace.

What about Live Aid wasn't that mainly an emotional response?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: 'Is being against deliberately blowing up hundreds of children with high tech artillery "political" and therefore somehow reprehensible?'

The word 'deliberately' is a strong one. You have NO evidence for that. There is no question that many children have died; and it is certainly arguable that the IDF response has been disproportionate, or criminally careless, or both.

But you debase language to use the word deliberate. That necessarily implies people sat around discussing how best to maximise the deaths of civilians. If you have a scrap of evidence - minutes of meetings, overheard conversations, taped phone calls, even video - for that then I will be the first to support you. But you don't.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

If you fire ordinance into built up areas deliberately and children die or if you fire on supposedly safe havens (the UN shelters and hospitals) deliberately, and then children just die by accident do they.

It's like driving my car into a crowd of people then being suprised when people said I killed them deliberately. "I just wanted to drive into a crowd of people I didn't want to kill any one, how dare you say that!!"

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



no Rob, you are taking one interpretation of the word 'deliberate' that suits you

there can be no doubt that the IDF has been fully aware that it is firing munitions into areas which will cause severe civilian casualities. the three UN schools' locations were given 17 times to the IDF, so they knew where they were. on each occasion, the IDF spokesperson has said there was incoming fire from the vicinity.

the IDF had a choice. They could accept that Hamas had put them in an invidious position, and refrain from responding. Or they could return fire, knowing that civilians, in an identified safe area, would be casualties. on each occasion they chose the second option. they prioritised a Hamas kill over the preservation of lives of non combatants. i think that counts as 'deliberate' targeting of civilians in most peoples' understanding of the phrase.

Israel keep telling us that they are the good guys, and Hamas are the terrorists. Well, i dont expect anything better from terrorists that showing a complete absence of regard for civilian lives. But i do expect better of responsible states, and expect the IDF to walk away from those engagements. The fact that a western democratic state disregards international norms, such as the requirement in the Geneva convention to safeguard non combatants, is the root of the outrage against israel, and isnt going to be forgotten by people.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: We could argue the semantics for ages, but my point is this: if the IDF rounded up civilians, put them in a school, or mosque, or whatever, and blew it up, that would be deliberate - the outcome was what was intended. God knows that has happened often enough in history.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

we could Rob. i fully accept your point; there was no direct intent to kill civilians. my point is that, for a democracy adhering to international norms, and the geneva convention, that's not good enough. my definition of deliberate is a weaker one, but they still deliberately engaged in action knowing that a by product of that would be civilian deaths, when they could have chosen not to engage.

i expect terrorists to pursue their objective, irrespective of the consequences. in an action such as the recent Gaza operation, where one side has overwhelming military superiority, i expect state actors to take more care

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


No they actually told then to leave their houses because they were going to blow them up. told them they should go to the UN shelter and then blow that up. Not deliberate though.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Do you really believe that the nutcase intentions of Hamas coupled with their total inability to cause harm to Israel justifies the bombing of sheltering civilians? Or are you desperately clinging to an indefensible position just to avoid the effort of having to change your view? Or is that if you were to see the Israeli government for the aggressive, racist, extremist murderers they are, then that would alienate you from people who are close and who support them because they too refuse to think?

The IDF have shown the world that they consider the lives of Palestinians to be worthless. There is no threat to Israel, the tiny region that Hamas' weapons can reach is defended by sophisticated hardware provided by the US. It's an excuse to kill, because the Isreali government wants to kill. They are aggressive, racist, extremist murderers, just like Hamas but thousands of times more deadly, and the idea that this war was "self defence" is completely absurd. How can a powerful army be killing children and civilians, bombing homes and schools and universities and hospitals in "self defense" when its civilians are already protected from the puny threat by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of hardware? It's an absolutely ridiculous position.

The only compelling explanation for the killing in Gaza is that Israel wants those people dead.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I think we all have plenty of evidence, sending thousand of shells, rockets and bombs into one of the most densely populated areas of the world is public knowledge and even Israel doesn't deny it, maybe you missed that?

Maybe once could have been an error, but dozens of times is deliberate.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Arabs killing Arabs => nobody cares
Westerners killing Arabs => nobody cares
Jews killing Arab => it's an outrage

Personally I see a problem with that, I would like to see all killings stop and all the suffering treated the same. If you focus only on the one perpetrated by Israel and ignore that we have been doing exactly the same you just have double standards, and that makes your criticism not very credible, and yes, politically motivated.

What about we clean up at our own doorstep first ? Maybe if we jailed our own war criminals we would be in a credible position to criticise Israel.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yet not three posts up, which explains the difference and you don't want to hear, or choose to ignore.

If You can't go that far up, What about the UN shelter that was bombed by Israel, after THEY told people to go there to be safe?

All the other stuff does not negate that. It's the same old arguements every time.

Whatabout????

That's Anti-Semitism!!

They're all terrorists.

Israel is acting in self defence.

All bullshit.

I think one of the things that has made this conflict different and why people have decided to speak out is, people are sick of the bullshit excuses, the constant lies and the insatiable propaganda machine that is the Israeli government.

It's as if people have just said, "if you are going to slaughter people then don't try and dress it up as something else." They can no longer claim anti-Semitism for people speaking out, and once the ordinary bloke in the street go over that hurdle they've been able to show the Israeli government for what it is; a murderous, apartheid state that isn't interested in peace.

Hopefully they'll have peace thrust upon them and they won't have a choice. People are speaking up and the propaganda machine is starting to crumble. Jews are speaking out and making their voices heard destroying the last bastion of Israeli defence which is anti-Semitism.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Rabbi Alissa Wise

Responses to five commonly heard pro-war talking points.


1) CLAIM: Israel avoids civilian casualties, but Hamas aims to kill civilians.
RESPONSE: Hamas has crude weapons technology that lacks any targeting capability. As such, Hamas rocket attacks ipso facto violate the principle of distinction because all of its attacks are indiscriminate. This is not contested. Israel, however, would not be any more tolerant of Hamas if it strictly targeted military objects, as we have witnessed of late. Israel considers Hamas and any form of its resistance, armed or otherwise, to be illegitimate. In contrast, … with the use of drones, F-16s and an arsenal of modern weapon technology, Israel has the ability to target single individuals and therefore to avoid civilian casualties. But rather than avoid them, Israel has repeatedly targeted civilians as part of its military operations.
Noura Erakat (July 22, 2014)
Five Israeli Talking Points Debunked, The Nation

2) CLAIM: Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.
RESPONSE: Although in 2005 Israel removed approximately 8000 Jewish settlers who had been living in illegal colonies in Gaza under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s so-called “disengagement” plan, Israel continues to exercise "unconsented-to effective control," the legal definition for qualifying as an occupying power. Israel continues to control Gaza’s airspace, coastline, and all of its entry and exit points except for one controlled by Egypt, which has cooperated with Israel in maintaining the siege and blockade of Gaza. This status has been affirmed by the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the U.N., and the U.S. State Department, among others.
Institute for Middle East Understanding (July 31, 2014)
Fact check: Israeli claims about the assault on Gaza

3) CLAIM: Gaza proves there can be no Palestinian state
RESPONSE: To grasp the perversity of using Gaza as an explanation for why Israel can’t risk a Palestinian state, it helps to realize that Sharon withdrew Gaza’s settlers in large measure because he didn’t want a Palestinian state.

Peter Beinart (July 30, 2014)
What American Jews Haven’t Been Told About Gaza, Ha'aretz

4) CLAIM: Hamas started this latest assault
RESPONSE: Israel’s assault on Gaza, as pointed out by analyst Nathan Thrall in the New York Times, was not triggered by Hamas’ rockets directed at Israel but by Israel’s determination to bring down the Palestinian unity government that was formed in early June, even though that government was committed to honouring all of the conditions imposed by the international community for recognition of its legitimacy.

Henry Siegman (July 22, 2014)
Israel provoked this war. It's up to President Obama to stop it. Politico

5) CLAIM: Israel is acting under self defense.
RESPONSE: All nations have a right of self-defense, including Israel. But that right may be exercised lawfully only in limited circumstances. Israel cannot validly claim self-defense in its recent onslaught against Gaza for two main reasons.
First…Israel remains an occupying power under international law, bound to protect the occupied civilian population. Israel can use force to defend itself, but no more than is necessary to quell disturbances. Hence this is not a war – rather, it is a top military power unleashing massive fire-power against a penned and occupied Palestinian population. Second, self-defence cannot be claimed by a state that initiates violence, as Israel did in its crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, arresting more than 400, searching 2,200 homes and other sites, and killing at least nine Palestinians.

George Bisharat (July 22, 1014)
Israel Has Overreacted to the Threats It Provoked The New York Times

Rabbi Alissa Wise


You can join in here
Click here to sign the petition: http://org.salsalabs.com/o/301/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=1618...

In reply to Cobra_Head:


Because emotional responses aren't rational and consequently often not the best option. Here the choice isn't between doing something in Israel and doing nothing. There are many other options. If we are doing this for humanitarian reasons, there are many other places where we could have more effect than Gaza. The point is we aren't bothered primarily for humanitarian reasons but for a variety of cultural, historical and political* reasons

*And before someone childishly interprets that as anti-Semitic, it's not.

In reply to krikoman:
Rather than pouring our limited diplomatic and emotional energy into the almost certainly intractable problem of Palestine, articles such as this suggest we should be thinking much more intensely and strategically about the Middle East as a whole and what effect the current change are going to have in 10,20 and 50 years time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28246732

In reply to RomTheBear:


Speak for yourself.

In reply to MG:


But who cares where the response comes from? As long as there's a response. But you seem to want everyone to either do f*ckall or to complain about somewhere else.


Apart from complain about somewhere else, you've not made any other suggestions.



Again does it matter, as long as SOMETHING is being done or do you just want people to stop bothering Israel?


You might not be, that pretty obvious, but don't tell me why I think why I think what the Israelis have done in Gaza is wrong.

Your second post above is again an attempted smoke screen of "Whatabout". Never mind whatabout somewhere else or some other conflict. WHAT ABOUT this one?

In reply to krikoman:


Well, rather obviously, focus efforts on more serious problems.



I wasn't. And quite clearly the Israelis have and are behaving atrociously. I was saying you weren't primarily motivated by the humanitarian problems because if you were, you would be more bothered by the more serious problems elsewhere.

In reply to krikoman:

As an analogy, you seem to obsessing about touching up the chip on your wall paper while your house burns down. And all the while screaming what about the chip, what about the chip, when someone points out the fire.

In reply to MG:
Limited diplomatic energy?
Fixing the problems in Israel is actually pretty easy by comparison. It just requires the will to do it. That primarily rests with the US who is bank rolling Israel and hence the occupation

In reply to woolsack:



Yes, and the US is country over whose foreign policy we minimal influence.

In reply to MG:


Who makes the league table of serious problems?

Try telling the bloke in Gaza with what's left of his son in a carrier bag that his is not a serious problem or that I'll have to get back to you because there something more important that I've been told I should complain about first.

You attempt at smoke screening the atrocities in Gaza and Palestine aren't working.

If you save one life you are saving a universe, it doesn't matter where it's saved.

Please open you eyes and see what your really asking for. You're asking ordinary people, who have decided that killing other human beings is wrong, to look the other way.

This fella said it all watch and learn.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10154412567475024&set=vb.812065023...

In reply to MG:


But any influence is just that influence!!

In reply to krikoman:

It would be helpful you actually read what I wrote rather than making up things you think I think. I am not attempting to make any sort of smoke screen or minimise Gazans' suffering or condone Israel. All I am saying is that in humanitarian terms, this isn't a particularly serious situation, or one where we can do very much beyond what is happening already.

IF you really think your efforts are best spent on Palastine then carry on, you won't do any harm and just conceivably some good. However, you could do much more good by expending the same effort elsewhere.

In reply to krikoman:









Don't you realise, that we, in the west, are reacting EXACTLY in the same disproportionate ways as they do.
Two towers down, and we invaded two countries and killed several hundreds thousands people.

As long as we have double standards, we can't be taken seriously by Israelis.

I see many people calling to boycott Israeli products and so on as a sign of protest, it is now festival time in Edinburgh and pretty much all Israeli shows have been cancelled.

Strangely when the UK had troops in Iraq I haven't seen many people saying we should ban British and american shows in a sign of protest.
The hypocrisy is all a bit too much.

Now if we want to be efficient we need to first clean up our own doorstep and jail OUR war criminals, and then force our politician to take targeted, severe action against the Israeli government. Just blaming the Israelis is useless, they are not worse than us in any ways.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Have you seen a lot of news coverage about what's happening in Iraq, in Syria ? They had a lot more casualties than we had in Gaza. But as I said, as long as it's Arabs killing Arabs we in the west do not seem to care that much...

In reply to MG:



Or you could do both

In reply to woolsack:

^^ What he said

In reply to woolsack:

I agree with that, in general going for one problem over all others isn't practical. However, right now that is exactly what is happening but the problem getting all the attention is Israel, to the exclusion of other bigger ones. Although I see the UN has made some welcome progress here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28686998 where 10s of thousands are at risk of being wiped out, along with millenia old cultures. This, by invading Iraq, is also a situation we are far more intimately and recently involved with setting up than Israel.

In reply to MG:


How much more intimately involved can we be anywhere in the world than Israel?

What about Balfour?

And why not turn you argument around and try to solve the oldest problems first. After all if this older problems didn't exist then maybe the precedents for new conflicts might not exist too!

In reply to krikoman:


Well one option is being part of the invasion and destabilisation of a country on false information, removing both the established army and political structure, leaving in a rush and offering no significant support when it all goes wrong.



Yes, I can see a letter written nearly a century ago is far more significant than the above.

In reply to higherclimbingwales: a sobering post highclimber. what can we do?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Again, speak for yourself, not for me.

When you say "...we in Gaza", does that indicate you are an Israeli? If so it explains your position.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I am not Israeli and anyway I don't wee why it matters where I'm from.

And this is not directed at you, but I am simply pointing out that there is a lot of armchairs activists sharing their outrage at the situation in Gaza on social media these days, just "because it's cool", and say the Israeli army is evil, but were perfectly happy supporting our troops when our British army "heroes" were bombing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In reply to MG:


But it's not just one letter is it, Britain was involved in Palestine as a major player just as the USA is now, Britain was the superpower back then. The creation of Israel was only made possible because Britain allowed Jewish immigration into the area against the wishes of the native population. The policy zigzaged but overall without Britain the few tens of thousands of Jews in Palestine would never have been in a position to take over the country in 1948 - "we", with our colonial mentality of the day, made it possible, to put it simply.

Now coming back to your notion that there are far more important problems elsewhere I don't think this is true either, so many of the problems in the Middle East have the Jewish occupation of Palestine involved with them, many of the islamist groups regard this as one of their principal reasons to exist, the constant murdering of Muslims by Israel, the threats of the very existence of countries like Iran, the horrendous attacks on Lebanon, the bombing of Iraq, the wars fought by Israel in it's efforts to remain in power, the influence it has on politics in the USA and Britain and other Western countries make it a problem that goes beyond any other I can think of.

If so many people are concerned about Palestine it is precisely because of all this. Israeli stooges may cry "anti-semite" all they want but they convince less and less. Every war, every brutal act by Israel enables people throughout the world, and not just muslims, to see Israel for what it is - an archaic leftover of Western colonialism, fighting a rearguard action but one that is doomed to fail as taking someone else's country against the will of the native people is no longer acceptable.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Well why did you say "we" in your post?

In reply to RomTheBear:



And other people have been consistently critical throughout

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Again why does it matter where I'm from ? "We" means all of us, not only Israelis.

In reply to woolsack:

In my experience, very few. Currently it's the Edinburgh festival and lots of Israeli shows are banned. I don't remember seeing British shows or American shows being banned when we had troops in Iraq...

I also remember Bruce vehemently supporting the Iraq invasion if I recall. Again, people seem to have double standards.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You might have missed it but there was quite a few people complaining about that. I suspect if you had a venn diagram of those who were against those invasions and the Israeli the intersect would be rather large.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Two is not "lots".
Two shows closed may however be all the Israeli govt funded shows.

Who isssued this ban you refer to?

In reply to dissonance:


Well you see I am not so sure.

In reply to RomTheBear:

2 million people rocking the biggest protest march in the country's history sounds like one or two people more than a few http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/15/iraq-war-mass-protest

In reply to elsewhere:



Yes it's all.


A group of so called "Intellectuals" and "artists" called for them to be banned. In the end they were cancelled by the venues.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Yep we did protest. And now Tony Blair is a "peace envoy". What a fucking joke. He should be in Jail that's where he should be.

In reply to RomTheBear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-28640377

A Pola spokesman said: "Clearly it was a difficult decision but in the end we will be cancelling."

Cancelled by the Israeli dance company Pola in response to protests does not mean there has been a ban.

Calling for a ban does not mean there has been a ban as I doubt intellectuals and artists have authority to ban much.

PS Israeli shows without govt funding continue

In reply to RomTheBear:

If the Gaza conflict runs long enough i'm sure people will also shut up as soon as there's a new 'viral trend' to be outraged about on facebook, some celebrity shows the boobs on the beach, or any other cover story news editors can suck dry till a new one comes along.

P.s. You edited, i save for eternity

>Yep we did protest. And then everybody shut up.

In reply to elsewhere:





You can call it what you what, the fact is they have been prevented from performing.
I didn't see the same protests and "cancellation" for shows that have received British funding.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Thats up to you.
With a few exceptions I have seen a very strong correlation between being opposed to Iraq/Afghanistan and being opposed to the Israeli action.
The reverse is also true.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Very true.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Ok, it's just I don't think "ban" is the correct term and I don't think two is "lots".

In reply to RomTheBear:



I'm sure the 1800 Palestinians would offer their unreserved apologies for dying at an inconvenient time for a fricking dance troupe

In reply to dissonance:



A good majority were against the war in Iraq, but very few are saying that British people and British leaders are evil murderers, and there lies a big difference, because I think that in fact, we are not morally better than the Israelis and I completely understand that they laugh at our faces when we tell them to stop their actions.

So instead of giving moral lessons we can't possibly give we should hit where it hurts: embargo on their lucrative tech sector, cancel their international patents, freeze international assets...

In reply to woolsack:


That's a stupid comment.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I think there is some difference (and I'm not justifying what happened in Iraq here) in that firstly, however misguided, the Iraq invasion was intended to help those in Iraq, not punish them. Secondly for all the mayhem I don't think UK/US forces were as careless of civilians as the Israelis are being (were multiple schools and hospitals etc bombed?).



That would have a big effect but it can't be done without US support which isn't forthcoming.

In reply to elsewhere:


Whatever, I think it illustrates quite well why the way we criticise Israel is laughable and inefficient.

In reply to MG:


Are you really sure this was intended at helping those in Iraq ? I thought it was because of the WMDs... Ho yes sorry that was a total lie.
And yes we were totally careless, more than a 100,000 civilian deaths at least, but when it's us it's just "collateral damage", when Israel is doing it it's outrageous murder. Well IMHO it's all outrageous murder.


You don't say.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well it depended on the day of the week but I thought it was also about spreading democracy throughout the middle east at one time? Obviously vastly more people died (hence my argument above about Israel being relatively trivial in comparison to other conflicts) but given the size of Iraq and the length of the war, that doesn't say much about the care taken.

Although the incompetence of governing after the war does suggest a comparable level of carelessness of civilians at that time, perhaps.

In reply to RomTheBear:

You seem to use the same arguments as Israel, do you work for the Israeli PR machine?

You offer distraction, and hyperbole as your arguments and it's not working any more.

A huge paintbrush used to paint everyone you disagree with, All protesters are anti-Semitic, the whole world hates the Jews, all Palestinians are terrorists, anything that has any connection to any Jews has been banned from the Edinburgh festival, everyone in Gaza is a member of Hamas.

I heard the same on the radio program about the Tricycle theatre, all lies and misinformation of course, but what have facts got to do with anything.

I pretty convinced that this is why there is such a movement behind the current campaign, it's the constant bullshit we're fed from Israel, the US and UK about why this happened and the cynicism behind it all.

How we tried not to injure civilians.

The stated Israeli figures that 50% of the deaths in Gaza were Hamas terrorists.

The fact you speak against people who speak out against this atrocity speak volumes about you.

In reply to RomTheBear:


How should we criticise Israel?

In reply to RomTheBear:


You don't, you weren't posting on ukc at the time, you are "remebering" using other people's selective memory.

In reply to krikoman:

Not with moral lessons we can't possibly give, but with actions. Which we see very little of.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well sorry but I do remember at least on thread where you said you supported the war in Iraq.

In reply to krikoman:


Instead of demonizing Israelis don't you think it would be more efficient to take targeted actions against the Israeli government ?

The fact that I despise armchair activists who seem to think they are morally superior to the Israelis doesn't mean I support the Israeli government or their actions.

In reply to RomTheBear:



And how do I do that?

I very easy saying don't do this or that, or look how bad this thing is over here. a concrete suggestion might give you more credence. Instead of everything you do is shit, it's a waste of time and look at all this other bad stuff.

In reply to krikoman:

Well it seems you are only able to think in terms of black and white. Maybe that's the problem.

Where did I say anybody was anti-semitic and that all Palestinians are terrorists ?

I am supporting the Palestinian cause but I just don't think that vilifying Israelis works at all as a strategy, it's too hypocritical. If anything you reinforce their idea that they are the ones being persecuted.

In reply to krikoman:


Maybe cast your vote intelligently at the next GE ? That's probably going to have more influence than saying that Israelis are all evil people.

But yes unfortunately we can't do very much, but if there is any criticism it has to be directed at the Israeli leaders and Hamas, not to a whole population.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So I have to wait until the next GE then? and in the meantime?

What the f*ck are you on?? How many people die in between now and then?

Also, my single vote means nothing, actually getting off my arse and complaining, is doing something. If nothing else it's advertising the plight of the Palestinian people to the general public. Which might help them choose in the next GE.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Again with the massive brush strokes, I didn't say that. I said the Israeli government were cnuts, not the people!

Twisting my words again to suit you piss poor argument, shameful.

In reply to krikoman:



So what do you suggest ? what have you done, concretely, to defend the Palestinians people ? Will you go fight for Hamas ?
By the look of it all you've been doing is pretending to have some kind of moral high ground.

I think a much more efficient approach would be to denounce the lack of response from our government, and if necessary kick them out, I don't see any other solutions.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

A database covering the testimonies of veteran IDF soldiers and their reactions to the orders they were working under.

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/

In reply to RomTheBear:


But the great majority of Israeli Jews do support their government and want them to go further. The opposition in Israel has dwindled and the whole country has been swinging to the right for years. Worse than this many Jews living outside Israel support Israel too... there were demonstrations in Paris and Marseilles in favour of what Israel is doing, several links on this thread are to documentaries as to how the pro-Israeli lobbies function in Britain and the USA... just to put the blame on a few nasty people in government is way off the truth.

Sanctions and trade boycotts, especially on arms and components, would help but public opinion is more powerful than you and all the "we can't do anything" brigade would have us believe.

In reply to RomTheBear:


That's what the protests are about, and it's been said quite a lot in the responses above.

they are also about publicising the plight of the people in Gaza and the inaction of the various governments, but again either you're choosing to ignore this or don't want to accept this.

What world do yo live in? Kick the government out, how do you do that? apart for wait until the next election, besides that if nobody in government thinks we don't give a flying f*ck then why should they change. It's only the last few days that it's even been mentioned in parliament. It was hard enough to get the BBC to report on it at first!!

Do you think the government would be looking at arm export licences if everyone had stayed at home waiting for the next GE??

Who said it's to do with efficiency anyhow, surely effectiveness is the key.

Your suggestions are as weak as your arguments.

Who said Hamas are defending their people? apart from you that is. I said we should fight for peace and to protect the people of Gaza. Unfortunately it's Israel that are dropping the bombs so that's where I'm directing most of my protest, while continuing to protest to our government and the US. While also supporting the Jewish dissenters who have also spoken out against the Israeli government.

I'm crying troll and if that gives you some pleasure then you sadder than your posts seem to make you out.

In reply to Cobra_Head:


Sure, posting on a climbing forum is really going to make a difference.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The problem is that public opinion is not very credible when we can't even clean our doorstep.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You're just repeating Israeli spin, no one believes you any more. Whatever other crimes have been committed by Western governments doesn't in anyway make Israel, itself a Western country, innocent.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Rom, i think you underestimate the level of outrage that the Iraq war generated. It led to the largest protest ever seen in this country. Which of course did not stop the war. but when events unfolded the way they did, and when the protesters were proved correct, the damage to Tony Blair, and in the end the labour party overall, was immense. There were many people, myself included, who vowed never to vote labour again while those involved in that decision were still in power in the party. Iraq will be a stain on labour forever, and is one of the reasons the 'new labour' brand became so toxic that Ed Milliband has to distance himself from it.

So the accusation that the response to recent events in Gaza is disproportionate founders further in this regard; there have been no mass protests- in fact in this regard its even arguable there has been an underreaction...

And be careful with the 'we' business- i didnt vote for the government that took us to war in iraq any more than i voted for netanyahu, and the actions of Tony Blair in office are not my responsibility,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Since when Israel is not in the Middle East lol ? I must have missed something.
Anyway I haven't been saying anywhere that Israel us less innocent. I am saying that moral lessons, coming from this UK, can justifiably be seen in Israel as a bit rich and hypocritical.

In reply to RomTheBear:


The thing is posting on a climbing web site CAN make all the difference, it's advertising the protest if nothing else. I've has someone contact me about going to London this weekend from the posts I've put on here. So that's at least one more voice.

Facebook and Twitter (though I'm not sure how that works) is all keeping the protest live, it's making people think about what's happening and gives them an outlet for their anger.

It also helps to inform people of the truth, encourages them to find out more and might make then make sense of some of the shite we're fed from governments around the world.

So you are free to think what you like, you can spout as much shite as you like about it all being a waste of time, and some might believe you. Others might try and find some info for themselves , while some who already know enough of the situation might be empowered to get of their arses and protest, sign a petition, write a letter to their MP. All of it helps, Gaza's can read these posts and know they are not alone, that itself maybe of some us to someone. It's not killing the people who are doing the killing, but it's not doing nothing!!

Your suggestions sum up to doing f*ckall because YOU don't think it worth it. You could say well done everyone for trying to do something. Instead you denigrate what little we can do.

In reply to Cobra_Head:





I suggest that we put real pressure on Israel through targeted economic sanctions instead of giving moral lessons on social media, protests are good but they are totally ignored by Israelis.