The I.D.F.

[LiverpoolHibs]

What a lovely bunch they are...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jPNN0qdF8

[NaeTechnoHibby]

What a lovely bunch they are...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jPNN0qdF8

Indeed, do what to others what was done unto you:boo hoo:

As a freind of both Jews and Arabs over the years, this is dividing them too :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

I wondered how long it would be before we had another anti-Israel thread.

I wonder if this will turn out to be another 24 pager. :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

What a lovely bunch they are...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jPNN0qdF8

Aye charming! :grr:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I wondered how long it would be before we had another anti-Israel thread.

I wonder if this will turn out to be another 24 pager. :greengrin

Yeah, imagine anyone making a thread about this! Mental...

That smilie's not out of place at all, either. Oh no.

[--------]

Yeah, imagine anyone making a thread about this! Mental...

That smilie's not out of place at all, either. Oh no.


LH, if you WILL listen to Arab propaganda rather than the entirely truthful and respectable reports on CNN and Fox, what do you expect.

Jackie Rowland clearly doesn't understand what she's seeing. That was an entirely peaceful tear-gas canister. Anyone could see that.

:wink:

[fergal7]

Yeah, imagine anyone making a thread about this! Mental...

That smilie's not out of place at all, either. Oh no.

You cant help yourself... can you? (must insult people who dont agree with me smilie)

[--------]

You cant help yourself... can you? (must insult people who dont agree with me smilie)


Do you really think that we get unbiassed news regarding the Middle East?

From CBS, CNN, Fox, ITN, even the BBC?

As far as TV news goes, Al Jahzeera is as reputable and responible an agency as any. More reputable and responsible than some.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You cant help yourself... can you? (must insult people who dont agree with me smilie)

Hold on, where's the insult?

[Betty Boop]

Do you really think that we get unbiassed news regarding the Middle East?

From CBS, CNN, Fox, ITN, even the BBC?

As far as TV news goes, Al Jahzeera is as reputable and responible an agency as any. More reputable and responsible than some.

Too far! :faf:

[--------]

Too far! :faf:


Sorreeee!

[Beefster]

What a lovely bunch they are...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jPNN0qdF8

I'm no supporter of Israel's actions (or even the case for the state of Israel) but is the IDF any worse than Hamas or Hezbollah?

I know it's trendy for left-wingers to slag off Israel but you can't ignore what the other side is up to too.

[da-robster]

I'm no supporter of Israel's actions (or even the case for the state of Israel) but is the IDF any worse than Hamas or Hezbollah?

I know it's trendy for left-wingers to slag off Israel but you can't ignore what the other side is up to too.

It's very unlikely they are but Hamas and hezbollah are not backed by this country.

[Betty Boop]

It's very unlikely they are but Hamas and hezbollah are not backed by this country.

What makes you think that? Israel committed appalling war crimes in Gaza, and continues to treat the Palestinians like crap.

[da-robster]

What makes you think that? Israel committed appalling war crimes in Gaza, and continues to treat the Palestinians like crap.

i'm certain they do but Hamas and Hezbollah will do the same.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm no supporter of Israel's actions (or even the case for the state of Israel) but is the IDF any worse than Hamas or Hezbollah?

I know it's trendy for left-wingers to slag off Israel but you can't ignore what the other side is up to too.

Well, for a start, I don’t really know what you mean by ‘worse’ in this context. I’m not really sure how that’s quantifiable given the enormous historical, economic and political factors that would need to be taken into account. But, hey, I’ll give it a shot!

Neither Hamas or Hezbollah (or since we’re talking in purely military terms the Izz-al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya) partake in the systematic brutalisation (is genocide too strong?) of Israeli citizens, nor do they provide the military and logistical means for illegal incursions into, occupation and appropriation of Israeli land. So yes, I’d say the I.D.F. are a lot worse than Hamas and Hezbollah.

Then there’s the fact that neither bodies are state institutions in quite the same way that the IDF, which surely has a bearing. So in some respect, comparison between them are pretty pointless - Hamas and Hezbollah are not really the ‘other side’ of the I.D.F.

The entire narrative in the West for the last fourty-or-so years has been based, if not decidedly pro-Israel, on this spurious idea that “both sides are as bad as each other” and them both needing their heads knocked together. It’s a ludicrous position to hold and is a case where ‘not taking a side’ is an acquiescence with the status quo and therefore completely analogous with taking the Israeli side.

Due to not really being much of a fan of Islamism (who’d have thunk it) I don’t support either Hamas or Hezbollah (so let’s hope it’s not portrayed that way…) but they are undoubtedly the only groups capable of providing any form of military resistance to the occupation - especially since the complete implosion of Fatah; largely brought about, incidentally, through Israeli ‘divide-and-rule’ policies (effectively bank-rolling Hamas in their attempts to bring about the downfall of Fatah and undermine the PNA - I don’t think they really thought it through…). But anyway I'm getting miles away from the question...

N.B. Is it really ‘trendy’? I'd prefer 'logical'... :wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

What a lovely bunch they are...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jPNN0qdF8

they're an army, in the middle east. wtf did you expect them to be like.

[LiverpoolHibs]

they're an army, in the middle east. wtf did you expect them to be like.

Ah, direct attacks on reporters and journalists are normalised now. Excellent...

[hibsbollah]

they're an army, in the middle east. wtf did you expect them to be like.

:greengrinIs that you defending the indefensible again?:greengrin

[--------]

Well, for a start, I don’t really know what you mean by ‘worse’ in this context. I’m not really sure how that’s quantifiable given the enormous historical, economic and political factors that would need to be taken into account. But, hey, I’ll give it a shot!

Neither Hamas or Hezbollah (or since we’re talking in purely military terms the Izz-al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya) partake in the systematic brutalisation (is genocide too strong?) of Israeli citizens, nor do they provide the military and logistical means for illegal incursions into, occupation and appropriation of Israeli land. So yes, I’d say the I.D.F. are a lot worse than Hamas and Hezbollah.

Then there’s the fact that neither bodies are state institutions in quite the same way that the IDF, which surely has a bearing. So in some respect, comparison between them are pretty pointless - Hamas and Hezbollah are not really the ‘other side’ of the I.D.F.

The entire narrative in the West for the last fourty-or-so years has been based, if not decidedly pro-Israel, on this spurious idea that “both sides are as bad as each other” and them both needing their heads knocked together. It’s a ludicrous position to hold and is a case where ‘not taking a side’ is an acquiescence with the status quo and therefore completely analogous with taking the Israeli side.

Due to not really being much of a fan of Islamism (who’d have thunk it) I don’t support either Hamas or Hezbollah (so let’s hope it’s not portrayed that way…) but they are undoubtedly the only groups capable of providing any form of military resistance to the occupation - especially since the complete implosion of Fatah; largely brought about, incidentally, through Israeli ‘divide-and-rule’ policies (effectively bank-rolling Hamas in their attempts to bring about the downfall of Fatah and undermine the PNA - I don’t think they really thought it through…). But anyway I'm getting miles away from the question...

N.B. Is it really ‘trendy’? I'd prefer 'logical'... :wink:


:top marks Especially the bit in bold. :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

Well, for a start, I don’t really know what you mean by ‘worse’ in this context. I’m not really sure how that’s quantifiable given the enormous historical, economic and political factors that would need to be taken into account. But, hey, I’ll give it a shot!

Neither Hamas or Hezbollah (or since we’re talking in purely military terms the Izz-al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the Al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya) partake in the systematic brutalisation (is genocide too strong?) of Israeli citizens, nor do they provide the military and logistical means for illegal incursions into, occupation and appropriation of Israeli land. So yes, I’d say the I.D.F. are a lot worse than Hamas and Hezbollah.

Then there’s the fact that neither bodies are state institutions in quite the same way that the IDF, which surely has a bearing. So in some respect, comparison between them are pretty pointless - Hamas and Hezbollah are not really the ‘other side’ of the I.D.F.

The entire narrative in the West for the last fourty-or-so years has been based, if not decidedly pro-Israel, on this spurious idea that “both sides are as bad as each other” and them both needing their heads knocked together. It’s a ludicrous position to hold and is a case where ‘not taking a side’ is an acquiescence with the status quo and therefore completely analogous with taking the Israeli side.

Due to not really being much of a fan of Islamism (who’d have thunk it) I don’t support either Hamas or Hezbollah (so let’s hope it’s not portrayed that way…) but they are undoubtedly the only groups capable of providing any form of military resistance to the occupation - especially since the complete implosion of Fatah; largely brought about, incidentally, through Israeli ‘divide-and-rule’ policies (effectively bank-rolling Hamas in their attempts to bring about the downfall of Fatah and undermine the PNA - I don’t think they really thought it through…). But anyway I'm getting miles away from the question...

N.B. Is it really ‘trendy’? I'd prefer 'logical'... :wink:

It probably won't surprise you in the slightest to hear that I disagree. :wink:

Fancy another discussion on the latest situation? I know you said the last time that you were no longer taking my views on this particular subject seriously, but I enjoyed the last thread a lot.

If you would rather not, then that's fine. I just thought it might keep us occupied for the next two months or so, since there's not much else happening on this board at the moment.

Anyway, you can let me know. :greengrin

[lyonhibs]

It probably won't surprise you in the slightest to hear that I disagree. :wink:

Fancy another discussion on the latest situation? I know you said the last time that you were no longer taking my views on this particular subject seriously, but I enjoyed the last thread a lot.

If you would rather not, then that's fine. I just thought it might keep us occupied for the next two months or so, since there's not much else happening on this board at the moment.

Anyway, you can let me know. :greengrin

I estimate 12 pages, with pages 8-12 being a online boxing match (erudite of course) between a select band of posters :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

The rise of Israel's military Rabbis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8232340.stm

[khib70]

It probably won't surprise you in the slightest to hear that I disagree. :wink:

Fancy another discussion on the latest situation? I know you said the last time that you were no longer taking my views on this particular subject seriously, but I enjoyed the last thread a lot.

If you would rather not, then that's fine. I just thought it might keep us occupied for the next two months or so, since there's not much else happening on this board at the moment.

Anyway, you can let me know. :greengrin
It probably won't surprise anyone, including yourself, to hear that I disagree too. However, is it worth it? Given that the "atrocity" that started this thread was a stray piece of non-lethal riot control ordnance landing in the vicintity of an al Jazeera journalist, it stinks of Liverpool Hibs and his cronies clutching at straws just to get another dig in at their bete noire.

Given that the thread is then reinforced, first by Doddie's hilarious assertion that al-Jazeera is some sort of reliable, impartial news source on Middle East matters, and then by posts with emotive photographs tagged on the end, there's very little point in arguing. You can argue with reasoned opposition - with blind predjudice, it's a little harder.

Going by LH's moral somersaults and double standards in his attempts to justify support for Hizbollah and Hamas - two terrorist organisations heavily bankrolled by rich foreign countries - we'd just be head-butting a brick wall.

Since some buffoon of an IDF conscript thinking it's funny to lob tear gas near a foreign journalist apparently epitomises Zionist terror tactics, yet I still don't see a thread condemning the murderous intentions of the foiled Muslim aircraft bombers, I smell double standards yet again.

Well, that's not really fair. There will probably be a thread shortly proclaiming their innocence, and how they were set up by Mossad, the CIA, CNN, and Donald Trump.

[LiverpoolHibs]

It probably won't surprise you in the slightest to hear that I disagree. :wink:

Fancy another discussion on the latest situation? I know you said the last time that you were no longer taking my views on this particular subject seriously, but I enjoyed the last thread a lot.

If you would rather not, then that's fine. I just thought it might keep us occupied for the next two months or so, since there's not much else happening on this board at the moment.

Anyway, you can let me know. :greengrin

Go for it, I wouldn’t want you to feel you can’t reply to the thread!

However, I’m not sure what sort of debate will be possible given the motivation for your beliefs on Israel; there’s not really any point of reference for me to argue off.


It probably won't surprise anyone, including yourself, to hear that I disagree too. However, is it worth it? Given that the "atrocity" that started this thread was a stray piece of non-lethal riot control ordnance landing in the vicintity of an al Jazeera journalist, it stinks of Liverpool Hibs and his cronies clutching at straws just to get another dig in at their bete noire.

Given that the thread is then reinforced, first by Doddie's hilarious assertion that al-Jazeera is some sort of reliable, impartial news source on Middle East matters, and then by posts with emotive photographs tagged on the end, there's very little point in arguing. You can argue with reasoned opposition - with blind predjudice, it's a little harder.

Going by LH's moral somersaults and double standards in his attempts to justify support for Hizbollah and Hamas - two terrorist organisations heavily bankrolled by rich foreign countries - we'd just be head-butting a brick wall.

Since some buffoon of an IDF conscript thinking it's funny to lob tear gas near a foreign journalist apparently epitomises Zionist terror tactics, yet I still don't see a thread condemning the murderous intentions of the foiled Muslim aircraft bombers, I smell double standards yet again.

Well, that's not really fair. There will probably be a thread shortly proclaiming their innocence, and how they were set up by Mossad, the CIA, CNN, and Donald Trump.

I think you’re starting to be motivated more and more by your dislike of me rather than the argument at hand. You haven’t argued anything here, just a series of ad hominem attacks on me and others - and to think you were accusing me of insulting people who don‘t agree with me the other day, shameless! You’ve even managed to completely contradict yourself within the space of a few lines. One minute it’s a “a stray piece of non-lethal riot control ordnance landing in the vicinity of an al-Jazeera journalist” when a few seconds later it’s, “some buffoon of an IDF conscript thinking it’s funny to lob tear gas near a foreign journalist.”

At least make your mind up.

I can see no evidence in any of my posts on the matter (in this and other threads) of ‘blind prejudice’. I’m sure you’ll be able to enlighten me, or is that just another pointless, nasty and unsubstantiated claim given the connotations, intentional I'm sure, of those words? Surely not.

You’ve also decided to completely ignore and distort elements of my post in order to suit your argument, just as I suggested was likely to happen.

You: “…his attempts to justify support for Hamas and Hezbollah…”

Me (explicitly and earlier): “Due to not really being a fan of Islamism […] I don’t support either Hamas or Hezbollah (so let’s hope it’s not portrayed that way)…”

Again, absolutely shameless. I’ll also look forward to you highlighting the “moral somersaults” and “double standards” in my post. Something you’ve completely failed to do in this reply despite your claims.

Oh actually, my mistake. Apparently the fact that I haven’t started a thread about the foiled, charged and sentenced (that’s quite important) Islamist attempted-bombers means that I’m guilty of double standards. I must remember to preface any future posts on the subject with a similar attack on a relatively unconnected matter. This is fantastic logic.

As for you final sentence, even by the standard of the rest of your post this is slightly beyond the pale. You can’t just make things up.

[borders.cabbage]

I’d say the I.D.F. are a lot worse than Hamas and Hezbollah.

So murder, torture and kidnapping of Palestinians = bad.
murder, torture and kidnapping of Israelis = not so bad. :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

So murder, torture and kidnapping of Palestinians = bad.
murder, torture and kidnapping of Israelis = not so bad. :confused:

Yeah, that's right.

****ing hell.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Seriously, do people just read what they want?

[khib70]

Go for it, I wouldn’t want you to feel you can’t reply to the thread!

However, I’m not sure what sort of debate will be possible given the motivation for your beliefs on Israel; there’s not really any point of reference for me to argue off.



I think you’re starting to be motivated more and more by your dislike of me rather than the argument at hand. You haven’t argued anything here, just a series of ad hominem attacks on me and others - and to think you were accusing me of insulting people who don‘t agree with me the other day, shameless! You’ve even managed to completely contradict yourself within the space of a few lines. One minute it’s a “a stray piece of non-lethal riot control ordnance landing in the vicinity of an al-Jazeera journalist” when a few seconds later it’s, “some buffoon of an IDF conscript thinking it’s funny to lob tear gas near a foreign journalist.”

At least make your mind up.

I can see no evidence in any of my posts on the matter (in this and other threads) of ‘blind prejudice’. I’m sure you’ll be able to enlighten me, or is that just another pointless, nasty and unsubstantiated claim given the connotations, intentional I'm sure, of those words? Surely not.

You’ve also decided to completely ignore and distort elements of my post in order to suit your argument, just as I suggested was likely to happen.

You: “…his attempts to justify support for Hamas and Hezbollah…”

Me (explicitly and earlier): “Due to not really being a fan of Islamism […] I don’t support either Hamas or Hezbollah (so let’s hope it’s not portrayed that way)…”

Again, absolutely shameless. I’ll also look forward to you highlighting the “moral somersaults” and “double standards” in my post. Something you’ve completely failed to do in this reply despite your claims.

Oh actually, my mistake. Apparently the fact that I haven’t started a thread about the foiled, charged and sentenced (that’s quite important) Islamist attempted-bombers means that I’m guilty of double standards. I must remember to preface any future posts on the subject with a similar attack on a relatively unconnected matter. This is fantastic logic.

As for you final sentence, even by the standard of the rest of your post this is slightly beyond the pale. You can’t just make things up.
Firstly, I don't dislike you. I disagree strongly with you on most (but by no means all) issues. That has never been grounds for dislike in my book.

Firstl, on the CS incident. I don't accept that this was a particularly good example of the sort of behaviour you are accusing the IDF of. The point I was making in these statements is that the incident amounts at worst to an act of stupidity by an individual, which I hope will be dealt with under IDF disciplinary procedures, as similar incidents have been in the past. There is no justification for assaulting journalists carrying out their duties.

"I don’t support either Hamas or Hezbollah (so let’s hope it’s not portrayed that way…) but they are undoubtedly the only groups capable of providing any form of military resistance to the occupation " Sorry, but that appears to me to be a major self-contradiction within a single sentence. So you imply that you believe what these groups are doing constitutes "military resistance". Suicide bombing and the indiscriminate firing of ballistic weapons at civilian targets doesn't fit my definition of military resistance. Saying that groups whose ideology you disapprove of are supportible because there is no alternative is, if not a moral somersault, a reasonable backflip at least.

"Then there’s the fact that neither bodies are state institutions in quite the same way that the IDF, which surely has a bearing. So in some respect, comparison between them are pretty pointless - Hamas and Hezbollah are not really the ‘other side’ of the I.D.F."

The first part of this is really a bit of sophistry. Hamas are the elected government in Gaza, as are Fatah in Judea and Samaria. Hizbollah are to all intents and purposes an arm of the Iranian state. The second part of this rather contradicts your assertion that Hamas and Hizbollah are "the only groups capable of providing some form of military resistance"

As for "ad hominem" attacks. To say that it is risible to suggest some kind of objectivity and impartiality on the part of al-Jazeera on Middle Eastern matters may not sit well with your thinking, but it is just as valid a point of view as suggesting that CNN or Sky News are unreliable witnesses. It fails to fit any reasonable definition of an "ad hominem" attack.

I repeat. I don't dislike you. I agree with you and respect you for the numerous stands you have taken on the serious issues of racism and homophobia amongst football crowds. But I'm going to continue to argue my case in areas where we do disagree. The alternative is to abandon this forum to a small but vocal group of anti-Israel zealots, and allow their assertions to go unchallenged. No way is that going to happen. If I occasionally state my case with excessive vehemence, I'm sorry. I'm not the only one.

[--------]

It probably won't surprise anyone, including yourself, to hear that I disagree too. However, is it worth it? Given that the "atrocity" that started this thread was a stray piece of non-lethal riot control ordnance landing in the vicintity of an al Jazeera journalist, it stinks of Liverpool Hibs and his cronies clutching at straws just to get another dig in at their bete noire.

Given that the thread is then reinforced, first by Doddie's hilarious assertion that al-Jazeera is some sort of reliable, impartial news source on Middle East matters, and then by posts with emotive photographs tagged on the end, there's very little point in arguing. You can argue with reasoned opposition - with blind predjudice, it's a little harder.

Going by LH's moral somersaults and double standards in his attempts to justify support for Hizbollah and Hamas - two terrorist organisations heavily bankrolled by rich foreign countries - we'd just be head-butting a brick wall.

Since some buffoon of an IDF conscript thinking it's funny to lob tear gas near a foreign journalist apparently epitomises Zionist terror tactics, yet I still don't see a thread condemning the murderous intentions of the foiled Muslim aircraft bombers, I smell double standards yet again.

Well, that's not really fair. There will probably be a thread shortly proclaiming their innocence, and how they were set up by Mossad, the CIA, CNN, and Donald Trump.


I find nothing 'hilarious' about the situation in Israel and Palestine. A lot of people are dying, a lot of people are homeless, and the whole situation is deteriorating to the point where 'genocide' is an accurate description of the Israeli government's intentions towards the Palestinians.

Al-Jazeera IS a reputable Arab news agency - as reputable as most of the Western agencies and considerably more reputable than any agency owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch, and certainly more reputable than any agency controlled and influenced by the US or Israeli governments.

A 'stray piece of non-lethal riot control ordinance landing in the vicinity (sp) of an Al-Jazeera journalist' - that's a nice phrase. You should ask Brown or Obama for a job as a spin-doctor. If it had hit her she would have become 'collateral damage', right? :rolleyes:

And if you think that a tear-gas canister at close range - not stray, but aimed in this case - is 'non-lethal', you've never seen one or had one fired at you.

You'll be pleased to hear, however, that you've made one point I entirely agree with - it's pointless arguing with blind prejuduce (sp - again!).

I would also agree - up to a point - with your description of Hamas and hizbollah as 'terrorist organisations heavily bankrolled by rich foreign countries'. But then so were Irgun and the Stern Gang, and one might very well argue that the direct descendants of those cheerful chappies, the IDF itself, could be described in exactly those terms too.

They spend much of their time terrorising a civilian population, and they're heavily bankrolled by the US government.

[borders.cabbage]

Seriously, do people just read what they want?
I read your whole post, but rather than quote the whole thing I used the above statement as it pretty much summed up what you were trying to say.

[khib70]

I find nothing 'hilarious' about the situation in Israel and Palestine. A lot of people are dying, a lot of people are homeless, and the whole situation is deteriorating to the point where 'genocide' is an accurate description of the Israeli government's intentions towards the Palestinians.

Al-Jazeera IS a reputable Arab news agency - as reputable as most of the Western agencies and considerably more reputable than any agency owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch, and certainly more reputable than any agency controlled and influenced by the US or Israeli governments.

A 'stray piece of non-lethal riot control ordinance landing in the vicinity (sp) of an Al-Jazeera journalist' - that's a nice phrase. You should ask Brown or Obama for a job as a spin-doctor. If it had hit her she would have become 'collateral damage', right? :rolleyes:

And if you think that a tear-gas canister at close range - not stray, but aimed in this case - is 'non-lethal', you've never seen one or had one fired at you.

You'll be pleased to hear, however, that you've made one point I entirely agree with - it's pointless arguing with blind prejuduce (sp - again!).

I would also agree - up to a point - with your description of Hamas and hizbollah as 'terrorist organisations heavily bankrolled by rich foreign countries'. But then so were Irgun and the Stern Gang, and one might very well argue that the direct descendants of those cheerful chappies, the IDF itself, could be described in exactly those terms too.

They spend much of their time terrorising a civilian population, and they're heavily bankrolled by the US government.
I'm afraid I have to say, ad hominem or not, that your quite obvious hatred for Israel is getting the better of you. Your use of inappropriate terms like "genocide" is a bit of a giveaway. We may differ in our interpretation of Israel's actions (and I don't by any means universally approve of them) but using the word "genocide" is emotional rabble rousing. If you have a shred of evidence that Israel as a matter of policy wishes to completely eliminate the Arab presence in the region, produce it. There are several statements from within the Arab and Islamic world, not to mention the PLO and Hamas's own Charters, which advocate fairly openly the complete destruction of Israel, however.

And there's no way you're getting away with accusing me of suggesting there is anything "hilarious" in the situation. I've been there and there isn't. What I was ridiculing was your assertion that al_jazeera is an objective news source. Your definition of "objective" like many other people's is apparently "agrees with me".

And to to argue that the IDF are the "direct descendants" of the Irgun and Stern Gang is more rhetorical (and hysterical) nonsense. The IDF are the descendants of the Haganah and Palmach, no more no less.

And as an ex-serviceman I have experienced the effects of tear gas. It is not lethal. Even a direct hit with the cannister, which is fired from a low velocity weapon, wouldn't kill you. If it was deliberately aimed at the reporter then that was stupid and inexcusable, however.

And I'm not accepting accusations (however veiled) of "blind predjudice" from you. Your increasingly ranting attacks on the Jewish state speak for themselves on that score.

[hibsbollah]

I'm afraid I have to say, ad hominem or not, that your quite obvious hatred for Israel is getting the better of you. Your use of inappropriate terms like "genocide" is a bit of a giveaway. We may differ in our interpretation of Israel's actions (and I don't by any means universally approve of them) but using the word "genocide" is emotional rabble rousing. If you have a shred of evidence that Israel as a matter of policy wishes to completely eliminate the Arab presence in the region, produce it. There are several statements from within the Arab and Islamic world, not to mention the PLO and Hamas's own Charters, which advocate fairly openly the complete destruction of Israel, however.

And there's no way you're getting away with accusing me of suggesting there is anything "hilarious" in the situation. I've been there and there isn't. What I was ridiculing was your assertion that al_jazeera is an objective news source. Your definition of "objective" like many other people's is apparently "agrees with me".

And to to argue that the IDF are the "direct descendants" of the Irgun and Stern Gang is more rhetorical (and hysterical) nonsense. The IDF are the descendants of the Haganah and Palmach, no more no less.

And as an ex-serviceman I have experienced the effects of tear gas. It is not lethal. Even a direct hit with the cannister, which is fired from a low velocity weapon, wouldn't kill you. If it was deliberately aimed at the reporter then that was stupid and inexcusable, however.

And I'm not accepting accusations (however veiled) of "blind predjudice" from you. Your increasingly ranting attacks on the Jewish state speak for themselves on that score.

I was about to remind you that the Head of the UN General Assembly used the word genocide in relation to Israels actions, hence it is 'hysterical' of you to describe Doddie's use of it as 'hysterical'. Herres an al-jazeera link to the story, in the absence of a Daily Mail one:wink:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200911321467988347.html

Then I remembered that you have previously said that the UN is a liberal, anti-Western organisation so I decided not to bother:faf:

[--------]

I'm afraid I have to say, ad hominem or not, that your quite obvious hatred for Israel is getting the better of you. Your use of inappropriate terms like "genocide" is a bit of a giveaway. We may differ in our interpretation of Israel's actions (and I don't by any means universally approve of them) but using the word "genocide" is emotional rabble rousing. If you have a shred of evidence that Israel as a matter of policy wishes to completely eliminate the Arab presence in the region, produce it. There are several statements from within the Arab and Islamic world, not to mention the PLO and Hamas's own Charters, which advocate fairly openly the complete destruction of Israel, however.

And there's no way you're getting away with accusing me of suggesting there is anything "hilarious" in the situation. I've been there and there isn't. What I was ridiculing was your assertion that al_jazeera is an objective news source. Your definition of "objective" like many other people's is apparently "agrees with me".

And to to argue that the IDF are the "direct descendants" of the Irgun and Stern Gang is more rhetorical (and hysterical) nonsense. The IDF are the descendants of the Haganah and Palmach, no more no less.

And as an ex-serviceman I have experienced the effects of tear gas. It is not lethal. Even a direct hit with the cannister, which is fired from a low velocity weapon, wouldn't kill you. If it was deliberately aimed at the reporter then that was stupid and inexcusable, however.

And I'm not accepting accusations (however veiled) of "blind predjudice" from you. Your increasingly ranting attacks on the Jewish state speak for themselves on that score.

And the Haganah and Palmach were good guys, right? Nothing to do with the others?

As for tear gas, its effects depend on the mix being used and the charge in the projector. Anyone with an existing respiratory problem encountering tear-gas can find themselves in serious trouble.

Rubber bullets were another anti-riot device supposed to be non-fatal; they're not actually rubber, and they do kill people.

However, I bow to your expertise.

I do not 'hate' Israel. I dislike intensely a lot of what has been done in Israel's name over the past 60 years, and I dislike military thuggism regardless of the uniform it wears.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Firstly, I don't dislike you. I disagree strongly with you on most (but by no means all) issues. That has never been grounds for dislike in my book.

Firstl, on the CS incident. I don't accept that this was a particularly good example of the sort of behaviour you are accusing the IDF of. The point I was making in these statements is that the incident amounts at worst to an act of stupidity by an individual, which I hope will be dealt with under IDF disciplinary procedures, as similar incidents have been in the past. There is no justification for assaulting journalists carrying out their duties.

I'm glad that's clarified. However, I don't see it as an isolated act of individual aggression - it's metonymic for I.D.F. policy as a whole in both Palestine and Israel.


"I don’t support either Hamas or Hezbollah (so let’s hope it’s not portrayed that way…) but they are undoubtedly the only groups capable of providing any form of military resistance to the occupation " Sorry, but that appears to me to be a major self-contradiction within a single sentence. So you imply that you believe what these groups are doing constitutes "military resistance". Suicide bombing and the indiscriminate firing of ballistic weapons at civilian targets doesn't fit my definition of military resistance. Saying that groups whose ideology you disapprove of are supportible because there is no alternative is, if not a moral somersault, a reasonable backflip at least.

There's no contradiction whatsoever. I never said they were supportible due to the lack of an alternative. I stated that they were the only groups capable of providing any form of military resistance to the occupation. That is a statement of fact. There is no moral somersault.

Neither are suicide bombings or the firing of Qassam rockets at civilian targets they only tactics they or the Palestinian Resistance as a whole employ (and as it is apparent that it's completely necesarry for me to point this out - this isn't a defence of suicide bombings or firing Qassam rockets at civilian targets). And I'm not sure what your definition of 'military resistance' is.

I also think this equivalencing of Hezbollah and Hamas is slightly fool-hardy, even though I've also engaged in it.


"Then there’s the fact that neither bodies are state institutions in quite the same way that the IDF, which surely has a bearing. So in some respect, comparison between them are pretty pointless - Hamas and Hezbollah are not really the ‘other side’ of the I.D.F."

The first part of this is really a bit of sophistry. Hamas are the elected government in Gaza, as are Fatah in Judea and Samaria. Hizbollah are to all intents and purposes an arm of the Iranian state. The second part of this rather contradicts your assertion that Hamas and Hizbollah are "the only groups capable of providing some form of military resistance"

Hezbollah are not to all intents and purposes an arm of the Iranian state. That's just untrue. To claim that the Izz ad-Din al Qassam Brigades (despite their electoral legitimacy, as you say) are as much an established institution of the State as the I.D.F. are in Israel is ludicrous. There's no sophistry.

What contradicts my assertion? Fatah rule in the West Bank?


As for "ad hominem" attacks. To say that it is risible to suggest some kind of objectivity and impartiality on the part of al-Jazeera on Middle Eastern matters may not sit well with your thinking, but it is just as valid a point of view as suggesting that CNN or Sky News are unreliable witnesses. It fails to fit any reasonable definition of an "ad hominem" attack.

Eh? Why would that be the bit I was referring to as an ad hominem attack?


I repeat. I don't dislike you. I agree with you and respect you for the numerous stands you have taken on the serious issues of racism and homophobia amongst football crowds.

Fair do's, and likewise.


But I'm going to continue to argue my case in areas where we do disagree. The alternative is to abandon this forum to a small but vocal group of anti-Israel zealots, and allow their assertions to go unchallenged. No way is that going to happen. If I occasionally state my case with excessive vehemence, I'm sorry. I'm not the only one.

I didn't say you should stop arguing/stating your case. I could say that would require you to have argued or stated a case in the first place - but that would go against the concilliatory turn this has taken. :wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I read your whole post, but rather than quote the whole thing I used the above statement as it pretty much summed up what you were trying to say.

And then you decided to completely misinterpret it?

[borders.cabbage]

And then you decided to completely misinterpret it?

If both sides have committed similar violent acts how can one side be any worse than the other ?

Even with their links to other terrorist groups and holocaust denial,
you seem to be trying to portray Hamas/Hezbollah as some sort of romanticised freedom fighters, battling bravely against the bid bad IDF.

[Betty Boop]

If both sides have committed similar violent acts how can one side be any worse than the other ?

Even with their links to other terrorist groups and holocaust denial,
you seem to be trying to portray Hamas/Hezbollah as some sort of romanticised freedom fighters, battling bravely against the bid bad IDF.

The Palestinians are living under occupation, what do you suggest they do?

[Sir David Gray]

Go for it, I wouldn’t want you to feel you can’t reply to the thread!

However, I’m not sure what sort of debate will be possible given the motivation for your beliefs on Israel; there’s not really any point of reference for me to argue off.

This may come as a massive shock but I actually enjoy having debates with you, even if I absolutely disagree with practically every single thing that you say. You are very well informed on a lot of subject areas, albeit a little misguided. :wink: You also have very strong principles and beliefs, just like I do.

I would hope that you feel the same in return, but maybe not. :greengrin

Anyway this time I will leave out a lot of the religious aspects, as you already know my views from that particular perspective, (although I can't ignore it completely as it forms the basis of how I view the whole issue) and I will concentrate more on recent events relating to the conflict.

Basically it is like this;

As you'll already know from the thread a few months ago, I am completely supportive of the state of Israel, although that does not mean that I necessarily think that everything their government and army (IDF) does is correct, I just fully support the presence of a Jewish homeland in that region. I also believe that everything which happens between Israel and the Palestinians is played out under the watchful eye of a higher power and that they are in full control of everything that happens in this conflict.

I believe that many more nations will eventually turn against Israel. Even their biggest ally, the USA, has begun to change its tone towards them (like I said would eventually happen, in the previous thread). Whilst the USA's present attitude towards Israel could hardly be described as hostile, there is far more pressure being placed upon Israel, from the Obama administration, than anything we have seen before from previous US Presidents.

Obama's speech in Cairo in June was very revealing, to me at least, as to what his true feelings were on the whole issue. There have also been several statements issued by the US in the past few months, which have been putting an increasing amount of pressure on Israel to cease all further settlement building in the West Bank. This is land that, I personally believe, belongs to Israel (along with the Gaza Strip). Which is why I do not agree with the popular view that Israel is stealing land from the Palestinians or that they are occupying Palestinian territory. I believe that Israel made a huge mistake in relinquishing control of those regions but as I have already said, I believe that the whole thing is being handled by a higher power and that there is a reason for why they did all that.

There have also been loud calls from Washington, calling for Israel to recognise an independent Palestinian state. I may end up being proved wrong on this but I would be very surprised if that is ever allowed to happen, despite what Netanyahu seems to be saying at the moment, albeit through gritted teeth. I think that Israel is absolutely correct in maintaining that Jerusalem should remain as their capital city and completely undivided.

I would just like to finish up by reiterating my belief that a peaceful solution, that suits both sides, is simply not possible and will never happen. Barack Obama may be able to sort out the worst financial crisis for seventy years, he may even be able to sort out the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I do not believe that he (or anyone else for that matter) will ever be able to sort out the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

There are simply too many obstacles to overcome, for peace to be possible. For a start, the Palestinians and their allies are never going to accept Netanyahu's terms for establishing a Palestinian state, such as it being a demilitarised state etc. and the Israelis are never going to accept the Palestinian demand to have East Jerusalem as its capital.

Anyway, catch you later on page eight, tomorrow. :thumbsup:

[Betty Boop]

This may come as a massive shock but I actually enjoy having debates with you, even if I absolutely disagree with practically every single thing that you say. You are very well informed on a lot of subject areas, albeit a little misguided. :wink: You also have very strong principles and beliefs, just like I do.

I would hope that you feel the same in return, but maybe not. :greengrin

Anyway this time I will leave out a lot of the religious aspects, as you already know my views from that particular perspective, (although I can't ignore it completely as it forms the basis of how I view the whole issue) and I will concentrate more on recent events relating to the conflict.

Basically it is like this;

As you'll already know from the thread a few months ago, I am completely supportive of the state of Israel, although that does not mean that I necessarily think that everything their government and army (IDF) does is correct, I just fully support the presence of a Jewish homeland in that region. I also believe that everything which happens between Israel and the Palestinians is played out under the watchful eye of a higher power and that they are in full control of everything that happens in this conflict.

I believe that many more nations will eventually turn against Israel. Even their biggest ally, the USA, has begun to change its tone towards them (like I said would eventually happen, in the previous thread). Whilst the USA's present attitude towards Israel could hardly be described as hostile, there is far more pressure being placed upon Israel, from the Obama administration, than anything we have seen before from previous US Presidents.

Obama's speech in Cairo in June was very revealing, to me at least, as to what his true feelings were on the whole issue. There have also been several statements issued by the US in the past few months, which have been putting an increasing amount of pressure on Israel to cease all further settlement building in the West Bank. This is land that, I personally believe, belongs to Israel (along with the Gaza Strip). Which is why I do not agree with the popular view that Israel is stealing land from the Palestinians or that they are occupying Palestinian territory. I believe that Israel made a huge mistake in relinquishing control of those regions but as I have already said, I believe that the whole thing is being handled by a higher power and that there is a reason for why they did all that.

There have also been loud calls from Washington, calling for Israel to recognise an independent Palestinian state. I may end up being proved wrong on this but I would be very surprised if that is ever allowed to happen, despite what Netanyahu seems to be saying at the moment, albeit through gritted teeth. I think that Israel is absolutely correct in maintaining that Jerusalem should remain as their capital city and completely undivided.

I would just like to finish up by reiterating my belief that a peaceful solution, that suits both sides, is simply not possible and will never happen. Barack Obama may be able to sort out the worst financial crisis for seventy years, he may even be able to sort out the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I do not believe that he (or anyone else for that matter) will ever be able to sort out the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

There are simply too many obstacles to overcome, for peace to be possible. For a start, the Palestinians and their allies are never going to accept Netanyahu's terms for establishing a Palestinian state, such as it being a demilitarised state etc. and the Israelis are never going to accept the Palestinian demand to have East Jerusalem as its capital.

Anyway, catch you later on page eight, tomorrow. :thumbsup:

So in fact you are in favour of Israel flouting International Law, and for the Palestinians to live under a system of apartheid. :rolleyes:

[khib70]

This may come as a massive shock but I actually enjoy having debates with you, even if I absolutely disagree with practically every single thing that you say. You are very well informed on a lot of subject areas, albeit a little misguided. :wink: You also have very strong principles and beliefs, just like I do.

I would hope that you feel the same in return, but maybe not. :greengrin

Anyway this time I will leave out a lot of the religious aspects, as you already know my views from that particular perspective, (although I can't ignore it completely as it forms the basis of how I view the whole issue) and I will concentrate more on recent events relating to the conflict.

Basically it is like this;

As you'll already know from the thread a few months ago, I am completely supportive of the state of Israel, although that does not mean that I necessarily think that everything their government and army (IDF) does is correct, I just fully support the presence of a Jewish homeland in that region. I also believe that everything which happens between Israel and the Palestinians is played out under the watchful eye of a higher power and that they are in full control of everything that happens in this conflict.

I believe that many more nations will eventually turn against Israel. Even their biggest ally, the USA, has begun to change its tone towards them (like I said would eventually happen, in the previous thread). Whilst the USA's present attitude towards Israel could hardly be described as hostile, there is far more pressure being placed upon Israel, from the Obama administration, than anything we have seen before from previous US Presidents.

Obama's speech in Cairo in June was very revealing, to me at least, as to what his true feelings were on the whole issue. There have also been several statements issued by the US in the past few months, which have been putting an increasing amount of pressure on Israel to cease all further settlement building in the West Bank. This is land that, I personally believe, belongs to Israel (along with the Gaza Strip). Which is why I do not agree with the popular view that Israel is stealing land from the Palestinians or that they are occupying Palestinian territory. I believe that Israel made a huge mistake in relinquishing control of those regions but as I have already said, I believe that the whole thing is being handled by a higher power and that there is a reason for why they did all that.

There have also been loud calls from Washington, calling for Israel to recognise an independent Palestinian state. I may end up being proved wrong on this but I would be very surprised if that is ever allowed to happen, despite what Netanyahu seems to be saying at the moment, albeit through gritted teeth. I think that Israel is absolutely correct in maintaining that Jerusalem should remain as their capital city and completely undivided.

I would just like to finish up by reiterating my belief that a peaceful solution, that suits both sides, is simply not possible and will never happen. Barack Obama may be able to sort out the worst financial crisis for seventy years, he may even be able to sort out the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I do not believe that he (or anyone else for that matter) will ever be able to sort out the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

There are simply too many obstacles to overcome, for peace to be possible. For a start, the Palestinians and their allies are never going to accept Netanyahu's terms for establishing a Palestinian state, such as it being a demilitarised state etc. and the Israelis are never going to accept the Palestinian demand to have East Jerusalem as its capital.

Anyway, catch you later on page eight, tomorrow. :thumbsup:
Unsurprisingly, I agree with a most of what you say, and unequivocally support the principle of a Jewish state.

However, we will have to differ on the settlement policy. While I tend to agree with you regarding Israel's historic claims to Judea, Samaria and Gaza - we have to accept that compromises must be made in search of a settlement, and of lasting peace.

The policy of "no land for peace" and the settlement policy generally is provocative and counterproductive, particularly when continuous military presence and the use of force is required to perpetuate it. Any Israeli state which seeks to rigidly enforce biblical boundaries will always have problems, and will have to act in a way which challenges its legitimacy as a Jewish state, and diverges wildly from the principles of its founders.

Of course, those who wish the total removal of the Jewish presence from the area and are prepared to go to any lengths to achieve this must be fought. But ultimately, the survival of Israel, and of the Jewish people depends on the mutual recognition of the right to live in the area within secure borders.

Neither do I share your rather defeatist notion that everything is controlled by a "higher power". For me there is no higher power than common humanity and we must take responsibility for the worlds we create.

Israel has an inalienable right to exist within secure and internationally recoginised borders. Its existence will never be secure or guaranteed if these borders are extended on a political whim, or justified purely on a literalist view of the bible.

Like you I enjoy these debates, even though I find the vehemence of some posters' antipathy to Israel slightly disturbing.

[LiverpoolHibs]

If both sides have committed similar violent acts how can one side be any worse than the other ?

Even with their links to other terrorist groups and holocaust denial,
you seem to be trying to portray Hamas/Hezbollah as some sort of romanticised freedom fighters, battling bravely against the bid bad IDF.

Sigh, am I? Am I really?

[LiverpoolHibs]

This may come as a massive shock but I actually enjoy having debates with you, even if I absolutely disagree with practically every single thing that you say. You are very well informed on a lot of subject areas, albeit a little misguided. :wink: You also have very strong principles and beliefs, just like I do.

I would hope that you feel the same in return, but maybe not. :greengrin

Anyway this time I will leave out a lot of the religious aspects, as you already know my views from that particular perspective, (although I can't ignore it completely as it forms the basis of how I view the whole issue) and I will concentrate more on recent events relating to the conflict.

Basically it is like this;

As you'll already know from the thread a few months ago, I am completely supportive of the state of Israel, although that does not mean that I necessarily think that everything their government and army (IDF) does is correct, I just fully support the presence of a Jewish homeland in that region. I also believe that everything which happens between Israel and the Palestinians is played out under the watchful eye of a higher power and that they are in full control of everything that happens in this conflict.

I believe that many more nations will eventually turn against Israel. Even their biggest ally, the USA, has begun to change its tone towards them (like I said would eventually happen, in the previous thread). Whilst the USA's present attitude towards Israel could hardly be described as hostile, there is far more pressure being placed upon Israel, from the Obama administration, than anything we have seen before from previous US Presidents.

Obama's speech in Cairo in June was very revealing, to me at least, as to what his true feelings were on the whole issue. There have also been several statements issued by the US in the past few months, which have been putting an increasing amount of pressure on Israel to cease all further settlement building in the West Bank. This is land that, I personally believe, belongs to Israel (along with the Gaza Strip). Which is why I do not agree with the popular view that Israel is stealing land from the Palestinians or that they are occupying Palestinian territory. I believe that Israel made a huge mistake in relinquishing control of those regions but as I have already said, I believe that the whole thing is being handled by a higher power and that there is a reason for why they did all that.

There have also been loud calls from Washington, calling for Israel to recognise an independent Palestinian state. I may end up being proved wrong on this but I would be very surprised if that is ever allowed to happen, despite what Netanyahu seems to be saying at the moment, albeit through gritted teeth. I think that Israel is absolutely correct in maintaining that Jerusalem should remain as their capital city and completely undivided.

I would just like to finish up by reiterating my belief that a peaceful solution, that suits both sides, is simply not possible and will never happen. Barack Obama may be able to sort out the worst financial crisis for seventy years, he may even be able to sort out the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I do not believe that he (or anyone else for that matter) will ever be able to sort out the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

There are simply too many obstacles to overcome, for peace to be possible. For a start, the Palestinians and their allies are never going to accept Netanyahu's terms for establishing a Palestinian state, such as it being a demilitarised state etc. and the Israelis are never going to accept the Palestinian demand to have East Jerusalem as its capital.

Anyway, catch you later on page eight, tomorrow. :thumbsup:

I do enjoy the debates but it would be dishonest pseudo-'niceness' of me to say I respect your 'strong beliefs and principles', being totally honest I don't really. That's not meant to be nasty either, just not fake bonhomie.

Other things apart (that are nearly impossible for me to argue against) I'm genuinely baffled that you can genuinely consider America's attitude to Israel as 'hostile'. I fail to see anything in the Cairo speech that could be construed in any way as hostile to the Israeli state. It's ludicrous.

[khib70]

I do enjoy the debates but it would be dishonest pseudo-'niceness' of me to say I respect your 'strong beliefs and principles', being totally honest I don't really. That's not meant to be nasty either, just not fake bonhomie.

Other things apart (that are nearly impossible for me to argue against) I'm genuinely baffled that you can genuinely consider America's attitude to Israel as 'hostile'. I fail to see anything in the Cairo speech that could be construed in any way as hostile to the Israeli state. It's ludicrous.
Me neither - I think he was looking for flexibility from both sides, and a recognition that if peace is to be achieved, no one is going to get everything they want.

And if a "higher power" is behind the misery and loss of life on both sides of the conflict, it's not one I want anything to do with.

[Betty Boop]

Interesting documentary "The Real friends of Terror" which takes the conflict between Palestine and Israel as its starting point.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15080.htm

[borders.cabbage]

The Palestinians are living under occupation, what do you suggest they do?

I would suggest that suicide bombs and rocket attacks on civillian targets make it more not less likely that Israel will impose sanctions/persecute Palestinians.

[borders.cabbage]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8250994.stm

[hibsbollah]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8250994.stm

You do know that those rockets come from Lebanon, and have nothing to do with the Palestinians at all? The Palestinian weapon of choice is usually a rock, against the IDF which has US-made helicopter gunships, US-made tanks and nuclear weapons at its disposal. So lets drop the pretence that there are two 'sides' taking part in a 'war'.

[Sir David Gray]

So in fact you are in favour of Israel flouting International Law, and for the Palestinians to live under a system of apartheid. :rolleyes:

As far as this particular issue is concerned, I do not agree with what international law states. I do not support the establishment of a Palestinian state, at least not in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, both of which I regard as being part of the Jewish homeland, along with the current Israeli state.

As for the second part, whilst I would not go as far as to say that they are under a system of apartheid, I do have sympathy for the innocent Palestinians who have been caught up in the violence and have been killed or injured as a result of it. Contrary to popular belief from the last thread, I'm not completely heartless.

Like I said in my previous post, I don't believe peace is possible between the Israelis and the Palestinians. No matter what is decided, one side will not accept the terms of the decision.

Politicians can try all they want, there is not a solution in the world that will bring about a peaceful end to this conflict.


I do enjoy the debates but it would be dishonest pseudo-'niceness' of me to say I respect your 'strong beliefs and principles', being totally honest I don't really. That's not meant to be nasty either, just not fake bonhomie.

Other things apart (that are nearly impossible for me to argue against) I'm genuinely baffled that you can genuinely consider America's attitude to Israel as 'hostile'. I fail to see anything in the Cairo speech that could be construed in any way as hostile to the Israeli state. It's ludicrous.

First part-I'm not at all surprised that you've said that as I know your views on Israel differ somewhat from my views. I didn't actually mention "respecting" my views, although I do think it's possible to respect someone else's opinion even if their views are completely at odds with what you personally believe in.

Second part, I think you may have misread what I actually said. I said that "Whilst the USA's present attitude towards Israel could hardly be described as hostile, there is far more pressure being placed upon Israel, from the Obama administration, than anything we have ever seen before from previous US Presidents".

I don't believe that America IS currently hostile towards Israel (far from it) but I do stand by what I said further on, which is that Obama is far more supportive of the Palestinian cause than practically any of his predecessors in the White House have ever been.

The Cairo speech, in my opinion, put an unprecedented amount of pressure on Israel, from the US. Obama used language in that speech that criticised Israel in a way that I don't think any other serving US President has ever done before. The speech was an eye opener for me, but was not something that particularly surprised me as I had mentioned this type of thing would happen, a few months ago.

[Tazio]

As far as this particular issue is concerned, I do not agree with what international law states. I do not support the establishment of a Palestinian state, at least not in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, both of which I regard as being part of the Jewish homeland, along with the current Israeli state.

As for the second part, whilst I would not go as far as to say that they are under a system of apartheid, I do have sympathy for the innocent Palestinians who have been caught up in the violence and have been killed or injured as a result of it. Contrary to popular belief from the last thread, I'm not completely heartless.


The part in bold is what I am really curious about. Do you want the whole Jewish homeland like the Zionists do? You know, all the way up to the Litani in Lebanon and East well into Jordan and Syria? Or just the bits they have stolen so far?

And as for the denial of a system of apartheid, that is just blinkered.

[Betty Boop]

Israel gets tough on "intermarriage"


By Jonathan Cook, Foreign Correspondent
September 7, 2009

NAZERETH, ISRAEL // The Israeli government has launched a television and internet advertising campaign urging Israelis to inform on Jewish friends and relatives abroad who may be in danger of marrying non-Jews.

The advertisements, employing what the Israeli media described as “scare tactics”, are designed to stop assimilation through intermarriage among young diaspora Jews by encouraging them to move to Israel.

The campaign, which cost US$800,000 (Dh2.9 million), was created in response to reports that half of all Jews outside Israel marry non-Jews. It is just one of several initiatives by the Israeli state and private organisations to try to increase the size of Israel’s Jewish population.

According to one of the advertisements, voiced over by one of the country’s leading news anchors, assimilation is “a strategic national threat” and warns that “more than 50 per cent of Diaspora youth assimilate and are lost to us.”

Israel, whose Jewish population of 5.6 million accounts for 41 per cent of worldwide Jewry, has obstructed intermarriage between its Jewish and Arab citizens by refusing to recognise such marriages unless they are performed abroad.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZupkGKtJvw

Israeli Peace Campaign on TV.

Can't see this kind of thing ever making it onto British TV. We're probably just too cynical these days:bitchy:

[borders.cabbage]

You do know that those rockets come from Lebanon, and have nothing to do with the Palestinians at all? The Palestinian weapon of choice is usually a rock, against the IDF which has US-made helicopter gunships, US-made tanks and nuclear weapons at its disposal. So lets drop the pretence that there are two 'sides' taking part in a 'war'.
I was aware that the rockets were fired from inside Lebanon as the title of the report was 'Rockets hit Israel from Lebanon'.:wink:

The last part of the report states..
'The border has been tense, but largely quiet. There have been occasional clashes and rocket fire. The Associated Press says this is the fourth such attack in 2009.
Palestinian militant groups operating in Lebanon are often blamed.'

[The Green Goblin]

A thought here, based on reading peoples` arguments on here, and trying to look at the problems of the bigger picture, if that`s the right phrase.

The role of the media, from wherever in the world, plays a large part in forming many peoples` opinions, in the absence of them actually being able to go to the places in question and see the reality of things with their own eyes.

Many people still don`t question the information and `angle` of news reports, on tv, internet or in newspapers and mistakenly believe that somehow what they see, hear and read is altruistic or accurate "because it`s on the news". Choice of language, choice and interpreting of statistics, choice of which photos or films to show and so on and so forth, all heavily influence the content of such reports.

These are all heavily loaded decisions and choices and there isn`t a single media agency which can be considered impartial or completely unbiased. The problem here then, is that the vast majority of people hear what they hear and don`t look any further or question it. Thus, people will inevitably end up on one side or another, depending on which media they are exposed to, or more likely choose to read.

You`ll note, I hope, that I have generalised in the widest sense and have not, perhaps ironically, tried to angle any criticism towards any one media corporation or news agency. The point I am making is that the world`s media are a part of the problem and we shouldn`t overlook that.

GG

[Sir David Gray]

The part in bold is what I am really curious about. Do you want the whole Jewish homeland like the Zionists do? You know, all the way up to the Litani in Lebanon and East well into Jordan and Syria? Or just the bits they have stolen so far?

And as for the denial of a system of apartheid, that is just blinkered.

Personally, I wouldn't include any parts of Lebanon, Syria or Jordan as part of the Jewish homeland.

I would however argue, once again, that Israel has not stolen anything as you cannot steal something that already belongs to you.

But if "the bits they have stolen so far" refers to the current Palestinian territories then, yes, those areas along with the present State of Israel is what I regard as being the Jewish homeland.

I hope that answers your question.

[Tazio]

Personally, I wouldn't include any parts of Lebanon, Syria or Jordan as part of the Jewish homeland.

I would however argue, once again, that Israel has not stolen anything as you cannot steal something that already belongs to you.

But if "the bits they have stolen so far" refers to the current Palestinian territories then, yes, those areas along with the present State of Israel is what I regard as being the Jewish homeland.

I hope that answers your question.

And can you explain how it "belongs to them"? How far back in history does a claim go?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Personally, I wouldn't include any parts of Lebanon, Syria or Jordan as part of the Jewish homeland.

I would however argue, once again, that Israel has not stolen anything as you cannot steal something that already belongs to you.

But if "the bits they have stolen so far" refers to the current Palestinian territories then, yes, those areas along with the present State of Israel is what I regard as being the Jewish homeland.

I hope that answers your question.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is interesting. Why are you confining it the Israel's current boundaries and the Occupied Territories. Should it not correspond, given your 'reasons', with the ancient Kingdoms of Israel and Judah?

Edit: Or even with the numerous differing interpretations of the Promised Land given in the Old Testament?

[Hibrandenburg]

Personally, I wouldn't include any parts of Lebanon, Syria or Jordan as part of the Jewish homeland.

I would however argue, once again, that Israel has not stolen anything as you cannot steal something that already belongs to you.

But if "the bits they have stolen so far" refers to the current Palestinian territories then, yes, those areas along with the present State of Israel is what I regard as being the Jewish homeland.
I hope that answers your question.

Just out of interest, would you also find it ok if the Picts came along and bulldozed your house to build a new stone circle?

[da-robster]

And can you explain how it "belongs to them"? How far back in history does a claim go?

The view from some zionists and from FalkirkHibs is completely wrong Should all Romans have the whole empire because 2000 years ago they had one will England get France back.Will Scotland get Northumberland back and should all Macedonians inherit Alexander's empire. The problem when you delve into history is you'll find that many groupings or nationalities have opposing claims to different land.If anything christianity has a better claim then the judaism to israel.
Also I think you'll agree that your aparthied argument has now been ruined by Betty Boop's post.

[Dashing Bob S]

This may come as a massive shock but I actually enjoy having debates with you, even if I absolutely disagree with practically every single thing that you say. You are very well informed on a lot of subject areas, albeit a little misguided. :wink: You also have very strong principles and beliefs, just like I do.

I would hope that you feel the same in return, but maybe not. :greengrin

Anyway this time I will leave out a lot of the religious aspects, as you already know my views from that particular perspective, (although I can't ignore it completely as it forms the basis of how I view the whole issue) and I will concentrate more on recent events relating to the conflict.

Basically it is like this;

As you'll already know from the thread a few months ago, I am completely supportive of the state of Israel, although that does not mean that I necessarily think that everything their government and army (IDF) does is correct, I just fully support the presence of a Jewish homeland in that region. I also believe that everything which happens between Israel and the Palestinians is played out under the watchful eye of a higher power and that they are in full control of everything that happens in this conflict.

I believe that many more nations will eventually turn against Israel. Even their biggest ally, the USA, has begun to change its tone towards them (like I said would eventually happen, in the previous thread). Whilst the USA's present attitude towards Israel could hardly be described as hostile, there is far more pressure being placed upon Israel, from the Obama administration, than anything we have seen before from previous US Presidents.

Obama's speech in Cairo in June was very revealing, to me at least, as to what his true feelings were on the whole issue. There have also been several statements issued by the US in the past few months, which have been putting an increasing amount of pressure on Israel to cease all further settlement building in the West Bank. This is land that, I personally believe, belongs to Israel (along with the Gaza Strip). Which is why I do not agree with the popular view that Israel is stealing land from the Palestinians or that they are occupying Palestinian territory. I believe that Israel made a huge mistake in relinquishing control of those regions but as I have already said, I believe that the whole thing is being handled by a higher power and that there is a reason for why they did all that.

There have also been loud calls from Washington, calling for Israel to recognise an independent Palestinian state. I may end up being proved wrong on this but I would be very surprised if that is ever allowed to happen, despite what Netanyahu seems to be saying at the moment, albeit through gritted teeth. I think that Israel is absolutely correct in maintaining that Jerusalem should remain as their capital city and completely undivided.

I would just like to finish up by reiterating my belief that a peaceful solution, that suits both sides, is simply not possible and will never happen. Barack Obama may be able to sort out the worst financial crisis for seventy years, he may even be able to sort out the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I do not believe that he (or anyone else for that matter) will ever be able to sort out the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

There are simply too many obstacles to overcome, for peace to be possible. For a start, the Palestinians and their allies are never going to accept Netanyahu's terms for establishing a Palestinian state, such as it being a demilitarised state etc. and the Israelis are never going to accept the Palestinian demand to have East Jerusalem as its capital.

Anyway, catch you later on page eight, tomorrow. :thumbsup:

I don't quite understand your line of thinking. If a higher power is controlling events, why do they not move things in the direction of peace?

If a higher power is controlling events, is it not a waste of time to blame the either the Israeli's or Palestinians for any aggression?

If a higher power is controlling events, then why are you bothering to participate in the debate? It seems futile and pointless.

[hibsbollah]

I don't quite understand your line of thinking. If a higher power is controlling events, why do they not move things in the direction of peace?

If a higher power is controlling events, is it not a waste of time to blame the either the Israeli's or Palestinians for any aggression?

If a higher power is controlling events, then why are you bothering to participate in the debate? It seems futile and pointless.

Quite right:agree: There is another line of thinking among fundamentalist Christians Ive read about, which goes something like this; 'Since God has pre-ordained the Jews to return to the land from whence they came, the current obstacles to that happening (the Palestinians inconveniently living there) is also part of His grand plan, hence Israeli attempts to invade and illegally settle the land is also against God's plan.

Makes about as much sense as any other attempt to impose biblical interpretations on the conflict:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Quite right:agree: There is another line of thinking among fundamentalist Christians Ive read about, which goes something like this; 'Since God has pre-ordained the Jews to return to the land from whence they came, the current obstacles to that happening (the Palestinians inconveniently living there) is also part of His grand plan, hence Israeli attempts to invade and illegally settle the land is also against God's plan.

Makes about as much sense as any other attempt to impose biblical interpretations on the conflict:greengrin

That's also pretty much the belief of many ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe that only God, not man, can bring the Jews back to the Holy Land. They, incidentally, will be criminalised - along with Arabs, Christians and other groups within Israel - by a bill currently passing through the Knesset seeking imprisonment for anyone denying or questioning the definition of Israel as a 'Jewish and democratic state'.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I don't quite understand your line of thinking. If a higher power is controlling events, why do they not move things in the direction of peace?

If a higher power is controlling events, is it not a waste of time to blame the either the Israeli's or Palestinians for any aggression?

If a higher power is controlling events, then why are you bothering to participate in the debate? It seems futile and pointless.

In contrast to Nick Cave, FH apparently does believe in an interventionist God - and one that likes seeing kids killed by F-15s.

[LiverpoolHibs]

http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/76-palestine/

Wowzer, this is quite a big deal.

Fantastic news, well done to the T.U.C. Congress and to the F.B.U. in particular.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/76-palestine/

Wowzer, this is quite a big deal.

Fantastic news, well done to the T.U.C. Congress and to the F.B.U. in particular.

That warms the cockles of my heart! :applause: Hats off to them all! :thumbsup:

[RyeSloan]

http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/76-palestine/

Wowzer, this is quite a big deal.

Fantastic news, well done to the T.U.C. Congress and to the F.B.U. in particular.

Sorry if this is a dadft question but what may I ask has the FBU or indeed the TUC got to do with British policy on Israel and Palestine...???

[Dashing Bob S]

Sorry if this is a dadft question but what may I ask has the FBU or indeed the TUC got to do with British policy on Israel and Palestine...???

It's not a daft question at all. Sadly, the answer is absolutely zero. Perhaps less than, if possible.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Sorry if this is a dadft question but what may I ask has the FBU or indeed the TUC got to do with British policy on Israel and Palestine...???


It's not a daft question at all. Sadly, the answer is absolutely zero. Perhaps less than, if possible.

If not daft, decidedly odd.

If you'd read the link, you'd see that a great deal of the statement is aimed at Histadrut and the Palestinian Federation of Trade Unions. Not at the British government.

Secondly, there's not a great deal of the statement that directly applies to the government or their policy on Israel/Palestine. Only one section of the statement does so.

Thirdly, the Labour Party are the British government. The T.U.C. as a whole (though not the F.B.U. - to their credit) are affiliated to the British Labour Party. As such they are one of the main (the main? I'm not exactly certain) funders of the party. They select members of the National Executive and the Party Conference. What have they not got to do with it?

Ah, of course - I always forget to remind myself that Trade Union solidarity is an anachronism in the modern world. Sorry...

[Green Mikey]

If not daft, decidedly odd.

If you'd read the link, you'd see that a great deal of the statement is aimed at Histadrut and the Palestinian Federation of Trade Unions. Not at the British government.

Secondly, there's not a great deal of the statement that directly applies to the government or their policy on Israel/Palestine. Only one section of the statement does so.

Thirdly, the Labour Party are the British government. The T.U.C. as a whole (though not the F.B.U. - to their credit) are affiliated to the British Labour Party. As such they are one of the main (the main? I'm not exactly certain) funders of the party. They select members of the National Executive and the Party Conference. What have they not got to do with it?

Ah, of course - I always forget to remind myself that Trade Union solidarity is an anachronism in the modern world. Sorry...


Undoubtedly the TUC exert great influence over the Labour party on domestic issues but I doubt their influence on foreign policy will be nearly as strong. The US, EU, UN and a host of other nations and organisations will be exerting influence on the UK's foreign policy decisions.

Do you think that union solidarity is going to make any difference in the Middle East?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Undoubtedly the TUC exert great influence over the Labour party on domestic issues but I doubt their influence on foreign policy will be nearly as strong. The US, EU, UN and a host of other nations and organisations will be exerting influence on the UK's foreign policy decisions.

Do you think that union solidarity is going to make any difference in the Middle East?

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Brown and BAE are suddenly going to **** it and begin an embargo on Israel. I was taking issue with the suggestion that it was none of their business to make a pronouncement.

For your second point, campaigns of any kind are made up of seemingly small instances of protest and solidarity (it's what makes them easy for people to laugh off and deride) that can build to something powerful and less easy to dismiss. I think this is a fantastic instance of that sort of thing. Histadrut becoming an outcast in the international trade union movement would be a great step.

[RyeSloan]

If not daft, decidedly odd.

If you'd read the link, you'd see that a great deal of the statement is aimed at Histadrut and the Palestinian Federation of Trade Unions. Not at the British government.

Secondly, there's not a great deal of the statement that directly applies to the government or their policy on Israel/Palestine. Only one section of the statement does so.

Thirdly, the Labour Party are the British government. The T.U.C. as a whole (though not the F.B.U. - to their credit) are affiliated to the British Labour Party. As such they are one of the main (the main? I'm not exactly certain) funders of the party. They select members of the National Executive and the Party Conference. What have they not got to do with it?

Ah, of course - I always forget to remind myself that Trade Union solidarity is an anachronism in the modern world. Sorry...

Odd might be the Fire Brigade Union of the UK putting out bullet points on the Israel/Palestine conflict I would say.

As for 'not a great deal of the statement' applies to the UK Gvt...maybe you should read it again as it says quite clearly:

"Congress calls on the General Council to pressure the Government to:"

Followed by a four point list and also contains

"Congress calls on the General Council to:

i) use its influence with the British Government to make appropriate representations to the international community to secure support for a negotiated settlement based on justice for the Palestinian"

Seems like a pretty great deal of the statement was directly aimed at influencing the British Government in it's foregin policy.

So I will ask again just what is it about the UK's Government (or indeed the conflict in general) that the FBU, who you rightly pointed out are not affiliated with Labour, should be remotely concerned about....what part of their members interests are they discussing here or are acting to protect by issuing such motions?

[Dashing Bob S]

If not daft, decidedly odd.

If you'd read the link, you'd see that a great deal of the statement is aimed at Histadrut and the Palestinian Federation of Trade Unions. Not at the British government.

Secondly, there's not a great deal of the statement that directly applies to the government or their policy on Israel/Palestine. Only one section of the statement does so.

Thirdly, the Labour Party are the British government. The T.U.C. as a whole (though not the F.B.U. - to their credit) are affiliated to the British Labour Party. As such they are one of the main (the main? I'm not exactly certain) funders of the party. They select members of the National Executive and the Party Conference. What have they not got to do with it?

Ah, of course - I always forget to remind myself that Trade Union solidarity is an anachronism in the modern world. Sorry...

It certainly is to the Labour Party. If they take any notice of this, it'll be the first time in about twenty years they've listened to anything from the unions.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Odd might be the Fire Brigade Union of the UK putting out bullet points on the Israel/Palestine conflict I would say.

As for 'not a great deal of the statement' applies to the UK Gvt...maybe you should read it again as it says quite clearly:

"Congress calls on the General Council to pressure the Government to:"

Followed by a four point list and also contains

"Congress calls on the General Council to:

i) use its influence with the British Government to make appropriate representations to the international community to secure support for a negotiated settlement based on justice for the Palestinian"

Seems like a pretty great deal of the statement was directly aimed at influencing the British Government in it's foregin policy.

Which is only one of the three parts of the statement. I didn't say they didn't call for pressure on the government, did I?


So I will ask again just what is it about the UK's Government (or indeed the conflict in general) that the FBU, who you rightly pointed out are not affiliated with Labour, should be remotely concerned about....what part of their members interests are they discussing here or are acting to protect by issuing such motions?

The F.B.U. are, however, affiliated to the T.U.C. - as I've said. And the T.U.C. are, in turn affiliated to the Labour Party. The F.B.U. only forwarded the motion, which was approved by the Congress.

So we're just concentrating on the F.B.U. and not the T.U.C. as a whole now, are we? It's just a complaint about the particular union who forwarded the motion? It's a call for the General Council to use their influence with the government to attempt to change policy. I'm not sure where the problem lies.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0909/tucpal5.html

[da-robster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/jewish-settlements-peace-talks-obama

[Sir David Gray]

And can you explain how it "belongs to them"? How far back in history does a claim go?

I believe the land belongs to the Jews because of what it states here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2034:1-34:15&version=NIV). I realise, and completely understand, that people who view the Bible as a load of rubbish will not see it that way.

As far as this particular claim is concerned, I believe it obviously goes all the way back to Biblical times and is valid for all time.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is interesting. Why are you confining it the Israel's current boundaries and the Occupied Territories. Should it not correspond, given your 'reasons', with the ancient Kingdoms of Israel and Judah?

Edit: Or even with the numerous differing interpretations of the Promised Land given in the Old Testament?

Like I have said to Tazio above, I believe that the boundaries of the Jewish homeland were set out in the Bible passage that I have made a link to in my answer to him. The homeland, which is the "Promised Land" that was specifically set aside for the Jewish people, is quite different from the "Ancient Kingdom of Israel". Which is why I do not believe that Lebanon, Syria or Jordan are included as part of the Jewish homeland.


Just out of interest, would you also find it ok if the Picts came along and bulldozed your house to build a new stone circle?

No I wouldn't say that because I don't believe that the Picts have a claim to Scotland that is anywhere near as strong as the claim that the Jews have to Israel and the current Palestinian territories.


The view from some zionists and from FalkirkHibs is completely wrong Should all Romans have the whole empire because 2000 years ago they had one will England get France back.Will Scotland get Northumberland back and should all Macedonians inherit Alexander's empire. The problem when you delve into history is you'll find that many groupings or nationalities have opposing claims to different land.If anything christianity has a better claim then the judaism to israel.
Also I think you'll agree that your aparthied argument has now been ruined by Betty Boop's post.

As I have already mentioned to Hiberlin above, the Jews have a claim to the "Promised Land" that is unlike any other people in any other country in the world. You cannot compare it to any other example.

Also, Christians do not have a better claim to Israel than the Jews. For a start, Judaism preceded Christianity by more than 1,000 years. It is also quite clear in the Bible that the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham, through his son Isaac and also to the Israelites, through Abraham's grandson i.e. the Jewish people.


I don't quite understand your line of thinking. If a higher power is controlling events, why do they not move things in the direction of peace?

If a higher power is controlling events, is it not a waste of time to blame the either the Israeli's or Palestinians for any aggression?

If a higher power is controlling events, then why are you bothering to participate in the debate? It seems futile and pointless.

I was trying to keep the religious aspect of my argument to a minimum but I will expand on it a little bit, now that you have brought these questions up;

1-It is moving (very slowly) in the direction of peace but peace will only be achievable once the Jews have turned to Jesus. At the moment, they refuse to do this. I believe that the situation will deteriorate further before it eventually gets better. I believe that Israel will, at some point in the future, be attacked by its enemies, which will be the point where the Jews turn to Jesus and ask for his help. Only when they have done that will peace be even remotely possible.

2-Yes, it probably is. I believe that behind this whole conflict, is a battle between God and Satan. Satan's aim is to wipe out the Jewish people, which will never happen but it will come pretty close. On the other hand, God's aim is to save the Jews but this can only happen after they accept Jesus and turn to him, as I have already said above.

3-I am bothering with this debate because it is a conflict that interests me a great deal and I can offer a view that is completely different from anything else that anyone else on this thread has said. Just because I believe a higher power is in control of this whole conflict, doesn't mean to say that I can't offer an opinion on what's going on.


Quite right:agree: There is another line of thinking among fundamentalist Christians Ive read about, which goes something like this; 'Since God has pre-ordained the Jews to return to the land from whence they came, the current obstacles to that happening (the Palestinians inconveniently living there) is also part of His grand plan, hence Israeli attempts to invade and illegally settle the land is also against God's plan.

Makes about as much sense as any other attempt to impose biblical interpretations on the conflict:greengrin

I'm not quite following you here. Who is saying that the Israeli attemps to "invade and illegally settle the land" (as you put it), is against God's plan? :confused:


That's also pretty much the belief of many ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe that only God, not man, can bring the Jews back to the Holy Land. They, incidentally, will be criminalised - along with Arabs, Christians and other groups within Israel - by a bill currently passing through the Knesset seeking imprisonment for anyone denying or questioning the definition of Israel as a 'Jewish and democratic state'.

But God IS bringing them back, through the use of man.

Also, you can debate whether you should be imprisoned for disagreeing with it or not (personally speaking, I don't think you should be) but Israel is not only just any old Jewish state, it is THE Jewish state. People can try to fight that all they like but that is the case.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/jewish-settlements-peace-talks-obama

Another example of something that I have been saying all along. There will be no peaceful resolution to this conflict. At least not for the foreseeable future.

[Dashing Bob S]

1-It is moving (very slowly) in the direction of peace but peace will only be achievable once the Jews have turned to Jesus. At the moment, they refuse to do this. I believe that the situation will deteriorate further before it eventually gets better. I believe that Israel will, at some point in the future, be attacked by its enemies, which will be the point where the Jews turn to Jesus and ask for his help. Only when they have done that will peace be even remotely possible.

2-Yes, it probably is. I believe that behind this whole conflict, is a battle between God and Satan. Satan's aim is to wipe out the Jewish people, which will never happen but it will come pretty close. On the other hand, God's aim is to save the Jews but this can only happen after they accept Jesus and turn to him, as I have already said above.

3-I am bothering with this debate because it is a conflict that interests me a great deal and I can offer a view that is completely different from anything else that anyone else on this thread has said. Just because I believe a higher power is in control of this whole conflict, doesn't mean to say that I can't offer an opinion on what's going on.


Firstly, thanks for your reply. I appreciate that it's very difficult when you have a fundamentally faith-based rather than a rationally-orientated outlook on life, and that to talk in such ways can set you up for ridicule in a largely secular society.

However, I feel that if you're being consistent with this faith-based view, accepting that this conflict is determined by the actions of an omnipotent higher power, you undermine your credibility as a participant in the more rational elements of the discussion you flag up.

As well as being a pointless discussion (assuming you are correct and the shots are indeed being called by a higher power) is it not also hypocritical, and even blasphemous on your part, to indulge in such discussion?

Surely, for a Christian, the only real way to help in such conflicts, is, as my mother-in-law says, through prayer. All the rest is simply worldly indulgence.

I'm not attacking you here, nor trying to ridicule you. I genuinely want to know, given your worldview, how you justify this to yourself. I'm interested because very, very few professed Christians (including my own parents and my wife's mother) are comfortable about discussing this, possibly because of these issues.

[Betty Boop]

1-It is moving (very slowly) in the direction of peace but peace will only be achievable once the Jews have turned to Jesus. At the moment, they refuse to do this. I believe that the situation will deteriorate further before it eventually gets better. I believe that Israel will, at some point in the future, be attacked by its enemies, which will be the point where the Jews turn to Jesus and ask for his help. Only when they have done that will peace be even remotely possible.


Why would the Jews turn to Jesus, when they don't recognise him as the Messiah, or the son of God? :confused:

[hibsbollah]

I'm not quite following you here. Who is saying that the Israeli attemps to "invade and illegally settle the land" (as you put it), is against God's plan? :confused:



I can't find a link, you'll just have to trust me that I read about it:greengrin It was an evangelical American christian group.

I think it comes from notions of pre-determination. If God has promised the land to the Jews, it will come to them regardless of Man's inconsequential squabbling. They would say to the IDF 'Put your weapons down. Let God get on with it'.

[Tazio]

The old testament says many things. Like we can't eat shellfish, or fish without scales. Or weasels.

Are those things still current and valid?

[hibsbollah]

The old testament says many things. Like we can't eat shellfish, or fish without scales. Or weasels.

Are those things still current and valid?

The koran says we shouldnt eat rock badgers. Excellent advice I would imagine:agree:

[Betty Boop]

Those Dastardly Anti-Semites?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23539.htm

[da-robster]

Are the jews even a people aren't they just a religous grouping similar to islam and christianity.If they are then could I not just convert pack my bags and illegaly park myself on some palestinain land on the west bank or Gaza.Or am I missing something. I know certain ethnic groups are different e.g east asians generally having squashed faces and europeans generally being white. But aren't the israelites or jews or whatever you want to calkl them so dispered and intermingled since titus that they have now stopped being an ethnic group and are simply a religion If I've got something wrong can someone please correct me.

[lyonhibs]

Are the jews even a people aren't they just a religous grouping similar to islam and christianity.If they are then could I not just convert pack my bags and illegaly park myself on some palestinain land on the west bank or Gaza.Or am I missing something. I know certain ethnic groups are different e.g east asians generally having squashed faces and europeans generally being white. But aren't the israelites or jews or whatever you want to calkl them so dispered and intermingled since titus that they have now stopped being an ethnic group and are simply a religion If I've got something wrong can someone please correct me.

WHAT????


I don't even know where to start with your post, but I suspect there will be plenty of people willing to offer an opinion more erudite than mine.

[RyeSloan]

If not daft, decidedly odd.

If you'd read the link, you'd see that a great deal of the statement is aimed at Histadrut and the Palestinian Federation of Trade Unions. Not at the British government.

Secondly, there's not a great deal of the statement that directly applies to the government or their policy on Israel/Palestine. Only one section of the statement does so.




Which is only one of the three parts of the statement. I didn't say they didn't call for pressure on the government, did I?

Well you did pretty well to try and down play it, stating 'not a great deal" dealt with israel policy when there is 4 specific demands on Israel alone. Strange when really a large part of the statement is aimed at the government and my quote was taken from two parts of the three part statement! half of the 10 bullet points of the statement are explicitly aimed at either "pressure the Government" or "influence with the British Government" so it's clear a signnificant part of the statement from a fire brigade union is trying to influence or change the Gvts policy on Israel and Palestine.

Still strikes me as just a bit strange the fire men need represented in such a way....again I'm still wondering just what cause or benefit such a statement is trying to support for all of it's members.




The F.B.U. are, however, affiliated to the T.U.C. - as I've said. And the T.U.C. are, in turn affiliated to the Labour Party. The F.B.U. only forwarded the motion, which was approved by the Congress.

So we're just concentrating on the F.B.U. and not the T.U.C. as a whole now, are we? It's just a complaint about the particular union who forwarded the motion? It's a call for the General Council to use their influence with the government to attempt to change policy. I'm not sure where the problem lies.

So now it is an attempt for the FBU/TUC to use it's inflence on Government policy in Israel!!

The problem lies in the fact that I still don't see any connection between the FBU in particular and the needs of british workers via the TUC in general and the Israel/Palestine issue.

I also wonder how such actions effect trade unions as a whole, why does a union like the FBU feel the need to take an offical viewpoint on such an emotive and complex issue.....does taking arbitarty decisions and demands like this really promote an inclusive and diverse membership? It might also be argued that is shows the FBU as a union more concerned with playing politics than it is getting on with what it should be there do, fight for it's members on issues that effect their profession??

[RyeSloan]

I
1-It is moving (very slowly) in the direction of peace but peace will only be achievable once the Jews have turned to Jesus. At the moment, they refuse to do this. I believe that the situation will deteriorate further before it eventually gets better. I believe that Israel will, at some point in the future, be attacked by its enemies, which will be the point where the Jews turn to Jesus and ask for his help. Only when they have done that will peace be even remotely possible.

2-Yes, it probably is. I believe that behind this whole conflict, is a battle between God and Satan. Satan's aim is to wipe out the Jewish people, which will never happen but it will come pretty close. On the other hand, God's aim is to save the Jews but this can only happen after they accept Jesus and turn to him, as I have already said above.



Not gonna go into the rest of the post as we are clearly living on differnet planets our worldview is so far apart.

However I'm curious on the technicalities of what you mention....how do the Jewish people as a whole 'turn to Jesus'?? In the face of extinction at the hands of the devils work how exactly do they save themselves?
Do you mean that all Jews need to instantly convert to Christianity to survive....do they hold a referendum, make a collective do or die decision on live TV by text vote or is their a head rabbi who decides for all??
How does a whole religion suddenly 'turn to Jesus'?

Personally I think it's fair to say that if this does all come to pass and it is an effective christian conversion that's required to save the Jews at their moment of peril I would worry about their saftey, big time!!

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well you did pretty well to try and down play it, stating 'not a great deal" dealt with israel policy when there is 4 specific demands on Israel alone. Strange when really a large part of the statement is aimed at the government and my quote was taken from two parts of the three part statement! half of the 10 bullet points of the statement are explicitly aimed at either "pressure the Government" or "influence with the British Government" so it's clear a signnificant part of the statement from a fire brigade union is trying to influence or change the Gvts policy on Israel and Palestine.

Still strikes me as just a bit strange the fire men need represented in such a way....again I'm still wondering just what cause or benefit such a statement is trying to support for all of it's members.

So now it is an attempt for the FBU/TUC to use it's inflence on Government policy in Israel!!

The problem lies in the fact that I still don't see any connection between the FBU in particular and the needs of british workers via the TUC in general and the Israel/Palestine issue.

I also wonder how such actions effect trade unions as a whole, why does a union like the FBU feel the need to take an offical viewpoint on such an emotive and complex issue.....does taking arbitarty decisions and demands like this really promote an inclusive and diverse membership? It might also be argued that is shows the FBU as a union more concerned with playing politics than it is getting on with what it should be there do, fight for it's members on issues that effect their profession??

Again, where did I say it wasn’t an attempt to alter government policy? I think I’ve explicitly said that, amongst the other elements of the statement, it was.

I’ll try again, the F.B.U. are affiliated to the T.U.C. who are a major funder of the British government. If they wish to use their influence in the government to attack British policy on what is an emotive (though not particularly complex, imo) issue they are perfectly entitled to. What’s more it is entirely commendable. Perhaps a large section of F.B.U. members approached the union with their concerns about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people and British complicity in this and asked them to broach the matter at the General Council of the T.U.C., who knows? They've been very closely involved with the issue for some time now, with an F.B.U. delegation visiting thew Occupied Territories last year.

This is where we are undoubtedly going to disagree going by past exchanges, which is why I didn‘t bother typing it earlier. I don’t think the trade union movement should focus solely on defending their members in the workplace (though that should obviously be their main focus). I believe they should be explicitly politicised and radicalised organisations and should be the rallying point for a wider movement of economic, political, international and social dissension.

Can I ask if you were, or would have been, equally dismissive of union involvement in the boycott of apartheid South Africa?

[IWasThere2016]

What a lovely bunch they are...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jPNN0qdF8

It's a good thing :agree: My pal and his girl had IDF .. they've lovely twins now

[RyeSloan]

Again, where did I say it wasn’t an attempt to alter government policy? I think I’ve explicitly said that, amongst the other elements of the statement, it was.

I’ll try again, the F.B.U. are affiliated to the T.U.C. who are a major funder of the British government. If they wish to use their influence in the government to attack British policy on what is an emotive (though not particularly complex, imo) issue they are perfectly entitled to. What’s more it is entirely commendable. Perhaps a large section of F.B.U. members approached the union with their concerns about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people and British complicity in this and asked them to broach the matter at the General Council of the T.U.C., who knows? They've been very closely involved with the issue for some time now, with an F.B.U. delegation visiting thew Occupied Territories last year.

This is where we are undoubtedly going to disagree going by past exchanges, which is why I didn‘t bother typing it earlier. I don’t think the trade union movement should focus solely on defending their members in the workplace (though that should obviously be their main focus). I believe they should be explicitly politicised and radicalised organisations and should be the rallying point for a wider movement of economic, political, international and social dissension.

Can I ask if you were, or would have been, equally dismissive of union involvement in the boycott of apartheid South Africa?


As I alluded to you didn't say there was no effort to influence government policy but you clearly played that part down, despite a significant portion of the statement clearly doing so.

I'm interested in your justification though that Trade unions should be "explicitly politicised and radicalised organisations and should be the rallying point for a wider movement of economic, political, international and social dissension".....is this not what we have political parties for and where would that leave me if I wanted representation in my employment but didn't agree with the unions wider political and social dissension views??

Do you not agree that such radicalisation is a significant reason union membership is on a steady decline and unions as a whole are now missing from large parts of the countries workplaces??

Why should a workers union be so? Surely the sole reason a union exisits should be for it's members, again I will ask what service is the FBU doing it's members here (or indeed sending delegations to Palestine)?

Are you seriously suggesting that a significant portion of the FBU memebership has lobbied it's leaders to take a stance on Palestine on their behalf and this is why the FBU are taking such an interest or is the truth really that they are acting as a political force in an area that has zero to do with their memebers well being.

As for the South Africa boycott, same applies I really don't see why a UK workers union should be demanding a boycott of any countries products on political grounds.

[hibsbollah]

As I alluded to you didn't say there was no effort to influence government policy but you clearly played that part down, despite a significant portion of the statement clearly doing so.

I'm interested in your justification though that Trade unions should be "explicitly politicised and radicalised organisations and should be the rallying point for a wider movement of economic, political, international and social dissension".....is this not what we have political parties for and where would that leave me if I wanted representation in my employment but didn't agree with the unions wider political and social dissension views??

Do you not agree that such radicalisation is a significant reason union membership is on a steady decline and unions as a whole are now missing from large parts of the countries workplaces??

Why should a workers union be so? Surely the sole reason a union exisits should be for it's members, again I will ask what service is the FBU doing it's members here (or indeed sending delegations to Palestine)?

Are you seriously suggesting that a significant portion of the FBU memebership has lobbied it's leaders to take a stance on Palestine on their behalf and this is why the FBU are taking such an interest or is the truth really that they are acting as a political force in an area that has zero to do with their memebers well being.

As for the South Africa boycott, same applies I really don't see why a UK workers union should be demanding a boycott of any countries products on political grounds.

Theres an understanding that since the advent of representative democracy, a 'civil society' has built up over hundreds of years, in which trade unions, charities, employers organisations, pressure groups and countless other organisations exist to supplement the democratic process. The FBU aren't doing anything new. (Personally, i'd say at a time when the public's trust for politicians is at an all time low, trade unions need to play a bigger, not a smaller role in global political campaigning.)

Civil society isnt solely pushing a left wing agenda either. The CBI made some ridiculous statement today suggesting that student grants should be cut because of the recession, which seems to be a)a counter-productive argument b) threatening the poorest in society at a time when social mobility is at its lowest and c) not the CBIs area of interest anyway.

[RyeSloan]

Theres an understanding that since the advent of representative democracy, a 'civil society' has built up over hundreds of years, in which trade unions, charities, employers organisations, pressure groups and countless other organisations exist to supplement the democratic process. The FBU aren't doing anything new. (Personally, i'd say at a time when the public's trust for politicians is at an all time low, trade unions need to play a bigger, not a smaller role in global political campaigning.)

Oh no doubt they 'supplement' the democratic process but normally in their field of expertise. I doubt you will find many cancer charities for example pressurising the governement on their approach to Israel, however you may get them lobbying for more funds to be given to UK based research....relevant and appropriate pressure or influence being sought for the good of all it's dependents/members is quite different from a statement based on a political view point on a subject a million miles from the charities field.

Sure it's hardly new for Unions to go well beyond their re-mit...the past has shown that a plenty but that hardly excuses the fact (in fact it may well show the opposite!)

Seems like you and Liverpool both seem to suppport the idea of a radicalised global campaigning brief for a fire mens trade union...as per my last post I'm genuinely interested in why you think this should be the case, why this role shouldn't be filled by a more approriate body (so the union could get on with supporting it's members and their employment conditions) and just what such global and politicalised campaigns do for the very people the trade union is there to represent and indeed the people it is meant to represent but don't hold those same political viewpoints??

[RyeSloan]

Theres an understanding that since the advent of representative democracy, a 'civil society' has built up over hundreds of years, in which trade unions, charities, employers organisations, pressure groups and countless other organisations exist to supplement the democratic process. The FBU aren't doing anything new. (Personally, i'd say at a time when the public's trust for politicians is at an all time low, trade unions need to play a bigger, not a smaller role in global political campaigning.)

Civil society isnt solely pushing a left wing agenda either. The CBI made some ridiculous statement today suggesting that student grants should be cut because of the recession, which seems to be a)a counter-productive argument b) threatening the poorest in society at a time when social mobility is at its lowest and c) not the CBIs area of interest anyway.

Sorry, quoted you before the edit...on the last part:

The CBI can and do come out with some tosh but considering every uni graduate will then be coming into the workforce and quite likely to be emplyed by a member of the CBI it's not quite fair to say this is not a CBI area of interest...the quality and quantity of available workers is critical to UK business so I would say it could be argued that it is an area that is very relevant to the CBI memebers in a general sense. Although I agree that discussing the size of their grants may be taking it a bit far!

[hibsbollah]

Seems like you and Liverpool both seem to suppport the idea of a radicalised global campaigning brief for a fire mens trade union...as per my last post I'm genuinely interested in why you think this should be the case

I cant speak for LiverpoolHibs, but I support the idea of a politicised trade union for the reasons I gave above re-a civil society. Trade unions are democratically elected and accountable; if there are more 'firebrand' type union leaders these days its because the membership is voting for them- these elections for union general secretaries are usually much more transparent than Westminster-type elections; the manifesto of each candidate is very explicit and clear for all to see. The same could be said of school governor elections and similar. Democracy works fine when its taken away from the sham party political structure.

[da-robster]

WHAT????


I don't even know where to start with your post, but I suspect there will be plenty of people willing to offer an opinion more erudite than mine.

I think you are misinterprating me, what I am stating is that europeans are generally white .I am not saying that is better or worse I am merely saying that that is common feature of the majority of europeans. What I am asking to anyone who cares to answer is what is the ethnic group of the jews which FH seems to be alluding to.I am asking what makes someone part of that group whether the group is just defined as a group of jews or whether it is slightly different genetically and appearance wise like the zulu's for example.This question is important because the whole of the regime of Israel is based on racism but it seems to be hard to tell what would make you an israeli citizen whether it is purely based on religion or whether it is based on the ethnic grouping who were driven out 2000 years ago by Titus who were all jews.

[LiverpoolHibs]

As I alluded to you didn't say there was no effort to influence government policy but you clearly played that part down, despite a significant portion of the statement clearly doing so.

Right ok. I don't think I played it down - that would imply that I don't think it's justifiable for them to do so, which I do. Perhaps a poor choice of words.


I'm interested in your justification though that Trade unions should be "explicitly politicised and radicalised organisations and should be the rallying point for a wider movement of economic, political, international and social dissension".....is this not what we have political parties for and where would that leave me if I wanted representation in my employment but didn't agree with the unions wider political and social dissension views??

It would leave you in exactly the same position as if they weren't to do so. As hibsbollah has said, unions are democratic organisations (that is to say, properly democratic - not like the House of Commons). If you disagreed you could campaign for a change or if you were particularly outraged you could leave and establish your own. See the N.U.M./U.D.M. split.


Do you not agree that such radicalisation is a significant reason union membership is on a steady decline and unions as a whole are now missing from large parts of the countries workplaces??

Nope, I certainly do not. For a start union membership has levelled off/increased in recent years, coinciding with a significant number of major unions shifting markedly to the left.

Your view doesn't fit with any analysis of events. R.M.T. membership has grown exponentially under Bob Crow's leadership. Other 'awkward squad' led unions have also shown increases in membership - including your favourites the F.B.U.

Unions that have shown a commitment to fighting for their members have grown - pretty much across the board. The message to unions seems to be: dissaffiliate, get a big bolshy ******* to stand for election, get militant and your membership will grow. :greengrin

I'd suggest that the main reason for the huge fall in union membership from the mid-80s is the fact that traditional bases of large unions were being decimated, introduction of anti-union legislation and union leaderships, for the most part, engaging in competition to see which one of them could prostrate themselves lowest - making it patently clear to their membership that they were unwilling to fight properly for them. The decline has never really been halted 'til now. Also, I don't think the unions have been active enough in attempting to gain members in newish employers - although granted it's pretty difficult to do for a number of reasons completely unconnected to this thread.


Why should a workers union be so? Surely the sole reason a union exisits should be for it's members, again I will ask what service is the FBU doing it's members here (or indeed sending delegations to Palestine)?

Because of working-class solidarity regardless of international bounderies. I think there's something quite fundamental that you're misunderstanding about trade unions. They are not individual self-contained, self-interested groups; quite the opposite.


Are you seriously suggesting that a significant portion of the FBU memebership has lobbied it's leaders to take a stance on Palestine on their behalf and this is why the FBU are taking such an interest or is the truth really that they are acting as a political force in an area that has zero to do with their memebers well being.

I said 'perhaps' and 'who knows', so in answer to your first question, perhaps and who knows. Again, it's a democratic organisation so their members are perfectly entitled to show their disgruntlement with the leadership if they so wish. They don't seem to be however, they already had a left-wing General Secretary in Andy Gilchrist and he was defeated by an even further left candidate in Matt Wrack.

Here's what they themselves have to say about their internationalism since you're so interested, they're not exactly doing it on the sly behind their members backs...

...the Fire Brigades Union is part of the working-class movement and, linking itself with the international trade union and labour movement, has at its ultimate aim the bringing about of the Socialist system of society...

Solidarity - joining together with others who share a common interest - is the very basis of trade unionism, and it shouldn't stop at national borders. With Britain's economy and political system ever more interdependent with Europe and the rest of the world, the FBU’s international work is now as important as it has ever been.

The FBU has a proud history of solidarity with workers in struggle across the globe, one it shares with the whole of the UK labour movement. Over the years, we have extended the hand of friendship to workers and trade unions abroad and they too have reciprocated with support to the FBU and FBU members when we have most needed it.

Our international activity is carried out today together with other trade unions through the TUC and “internationals” such as the Public Services International (PSI) and European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), as well as through affiliated organisations such as Cuba Solidarity, Justice for Colombia and Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

At a national, regional and local level, FBU members and officials are active in campaigning on issues from trade union and human rights to poverty, independence struggles, HIV/AIDs and global peace and disarmament.

How is FBU international policy decided?
The FBU’s international policy is determined by annual conference, which considers resolutions from branches/brigades, regions, sections and the Executive Council. The EC's international sub-committee is responsible for international policy between conferences, including determining the international work priorities of the union.
Whether it’s providing moral, political, financial or practical help to workers and trade unions abroad, uniting across borders on common issues or simply exchanging ideas and information, the FBU is keen for members and officials to get involved.

Want to get more involved?
If you want to progress an international issue in the FBU, start by raising it at your next branch or brigade meeting, through your section or write directly to Matt Wrack, Secretary to the International Sub-Committee, at Head Office.
If you are active in international campaigns at a local level, would like to become more involved, or wish to be better informed about the Union’s international campaigns, email us at [email protected]


As for the South Africa boycott, same applies I really don't see why a UK workers union should be demanding a boycott of any countries products on political grounds.

As above...


Oh no doubt they 'supplement' the democratic process but normally in their field of expertise. I doubt you will find many cancer charities for example pressurising the governement on their approach to Israel, however you may get them lobbying for more funds to be given to UK based research....relevant and appropriate pressure or influence being sought for the good of all it's dependents/members is quite different from a statement based on a political view point on a subject a million miles from the charities field.

Surely you can see that likening the trade union movement to cancer charities is absolutely ludicrous?


Sure it's hardly new for Unions to go well beyond their re-mit...the past has shown that a plenty but that hardly excuses the fact (in fact it may well show the opposite!)

Deary me, you are attempting to define their remit - no one else.


Seems like you and Liverpool both seem to suppport the idea of a radicalised global campaigning brief for a fire mens trade union...as per my last post I'm genuinely interested in why you think this should be the case, why this role shouldn't be filled by a more approriate body (so the union could get on with supporting it's members and their employment conditions) and just what such global and politicalised campaigns do for the very people the trade union is there to represent and indeed the people it is meant to represent but don't hold those same political viewpoints??

There are a number of problems with this bit. No-one has attempted to limit the discussion to the F.B.U. except you, and I'm not exactly sure why. Secondly, you've taken a point of what I said (I don’t think the trade union movement should focus solely on defending their members in the workplace (though that should obviously be their main focus). I believe they should be explicitly politicised and radicalised organisations and should be the rallying point for a wider movement of economic, political, international and social dissension) and intentionally abstracted it and limited it in an attempt to make it seem laughable. Thirdly, you made a strange supposition (notably without ever saying explicitly what you're getting at) that actions such as the one being discussed are being carried out at the expense of their members - and that's exactly what it is, a baseless supposition.

You also seem to be ignoring lots of what people are saying. I think in order to make it seem like people aren't answering you when they have.

Anyway, this is getting a loooong way off-topic.

[RyeSloan]

LH, thanks for the reply..yer right it is a long way off topic but none the less it tweaked my interest!

I wasn't deliberatley focusing on the FBU but the example of their 'work' you posted and have explained since was to me a perfect example of an outfit carrying out actions well beyond anything that would have an direct benefit to their members.

I see now that trade unions are not just their for their members but see their existance as reason to continue a world wide effort for Socialism and worker solidarity (as long as those workers are not israeli of course!) and that this is considered a strength of the TU movement from your perspective.
Strangely enough I don't happen to share this view and think that such actions can only alienate a lot of potenial members and leave such workers (a Jewish fireman perhaps!) not feeling much 'solidarity' at all!!

Finally I made no consious effort to "intentionally abstracted it and limited it in an attempt to make it seem laughable" when discussing your point but if I did then I'm quite pleased :wink: No seriously spending fire mens representitives time and their subs money on international work to spread worldwide socialism and solidarity with workers that fit such a narrow political profile might seem worthwhile to you but to say that this is not to the direct benefit of it members is hardly a "baseless supposition"

Anyway as I said at the start, thanks for the reply as it has clarified a number of my questions and quite elloquently showed what you and the trade union movement believe they are there to do....fortunately I am not a fireman and work in a union free environement so no need for me to buy a Socialist Worker (do they still print that!?!) to fit in with my potential workplace representatives!!! :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

LH, thanks for the reply..yer right it is a long way off topic but none the less it tweaked my interest!

No bother, I quite enjoyed it as well. :greengrin


I wasn't deliberatley focusing on the FBU but the example of their 'work' you posted and have explained since was to me a perfect example of an outfit carrying out actions well beyond anything that would have an direct benefit to their members.

Fair enough.


I see now that trade unions are not just their for their members but see their existance as reason to continue a world wide effort for Socialism and worker solidarity (as long as those workers are not israeli of course!) and that this is considered a strength of the TU movement from your perspective.

Admittedly, I'm not sure even most union leaders would agree with me.


Strangely enough I don't happen to share this view and think that such actions can only alienate a lot of potenial members and leave such workers (a Jewish fireman perhaps!) not feeling much 'solidarity' at all!!

Hmmm, you're pushing your luck! :greengrin


Finally I made no consious effort to "intentionally abstracted it and limited it in an attempt to make it seem laughable" when discussing your point but if I did then I'm quite pleased :wink: No seriously spending fire mens representitives time and their subs money on international work to spread worldwide socialism and solidarity with workers that fit such a narrow political profile might seem worthwhile to you but to say that this is not to the direct benefit of it members is hardly a "baseless supposition"

Not just worthwhile, absolutely fundamental.

And you're twisting things again, I didn't say it was a baseless supposition to say it wasn't of direct benefit to their members. I said it was a baseless supposition to say that it was being done at the expense of their members - big difference.


Anyway as I said at the start, thanks for the reply as it has clarified a number of my questions and quite elloquently showed what you and the trade union movement believe they are there to do....fortunately I am not a fireman and work in a union free environement so no need for me to buy a Socialist Worker (do they still print that!?!) to fit in with my potential workplace representatives!!! :greengrin

I can't say I'm terribly surprised. :wink:

[Sir David Gray]

1-It is moving (very slowly) in the direction of peace but peace will only be achievable once the Jews have turned to Jesus. At the moment, they refuse to do this. I believe that the situation will deteriorate further before it eventually gets better. I believe that Israel will, at some point in the future, be attacked by its enemies, which will be the point where the Jews turn to Jesus and ask for his help. Only when they have done that will peace be even remotely possible.

2-Yes, it probably is. I believe that behind this whole conflict, is a battle between God and Satan. Satan's aim is to wipe out the Jewish people, which will never happen but it will come pretty close. On the other hand, God's aim is to save the Jews but this can only happen after they accept Jesus and turn to him, as I have already said above.

3-I am bothering with this debate because it is a conflict that interests me a great deal and I can offer a view that is completely different from anything else that anyone else on this thread has said. Just because I believe a higher power is in control of this whole conflict, doesn't mean to say that I can't offer an opinion on what's going on.


Firstly, thanks for your reply. I appreciate that it's very difficult when you have a fundamentally faith-based rather than a rationally-orientated outlook on life, and that to talk in such ways can set you up for ridicule in a largely secular society.

However, I feel that if you're being consistent with this faith-based view, accepting that this conflict is determined by the actions of an omnipotent higher power, you undermine your credibility as a participant in the more rational elements of the discussion you flag up.

As well as being a pointless discussion (assuming you are correct and the shots are indeed being called by a higher power) is it not also hypocritical, and even blasphemous on your part, to indulge in such discussion?

Surely, for a Christian, the only real way to help in such conflicts, is, as my mother-in-law says, through prayer. All the rest is simply worldly indulgence.

I'm not attacking you here, nor trying to ridicule you. I genuinely want to know, given your worldview, how you justify this to yourself. I'm interested because very, very few professed Christians (including my own parents and my wife's mother) are comfortable about discussing this, possibly because of these issues.

Thank you for your post here. I'm genuinely thankful that I have had a largely respectful and inquisitive response to what I have had to say on this subject. I have absolutely no problem with people challenging my points of view and disagreeing with me.

However, I'm not too sure how it could be seen as blasphemous for me to comment on this debate, when all I'm doing is stating what I believe is happening and will happen in this conflict. Perhaps you could explain that to me.

In terms of what you have said about your parents and your mother-in-law, I can completely understand where they are coming from. However, I feel that it is easier for me to put forward those kind of views on here when I am "speaking" to people that I don't know, from behind a computer screen. It would probably be more difficult if I was speaking with people face-to-face about these kind of topics.


1-It is moving (very slowly) in the direction of peace but peace will only be achievable once the Jews have turned to Jesus. At the moment, they refuse to do this. I believe that the situation will deteriorate further before it eventually gets better. I believe that Israel will, at some point in the future, be attacked by its enemies, which will be the point where the Jews turn to Jesus and ask for his help. Only when they have done that will peace be even remotely possible.


Why would the Jews turn to Jesus, when they don't recognise him as the Messiah, or the son of God? :confused:

Basically, what I believe is that the Jews were dispersed from their land many times over the centuries because of their refusal to accept Jesus. The Jewish people have a special relationship with God but they have so far rejected His son and this has so been their downfall, up until now.

I believe that they must turn to Jesus so that they can be saved from the many enemies who are currently against them and are determined to drive them back out of their land. I believe that they will turn to Jesus eventually.

At the moment, the Jews aren't really fighting against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria or Iran, they are fighting against God. Although, I do believe that all of the above groups and nations (along with everyone else who is opposed to the Jews being in their homeland) will be dealt with severely in the end.


I can't find a link, you'll just have to trust me that I read about it:greengrin It was an evangelical American christian group.

I think it comes from notions of pre-determination. If God has promised the land to the Jews, it will come to them regardless of Man's inconsequential squabbling. They would say to the IDF 'Put your weapons down. Let God get on with it'.

I believe you, thousands wouldn't. :wink:

That viewpoint doesn't make any sense to me at all and it's not something that I agree with. Yes God will "get on with it" but His actions are done through Man. How else will it happen?


The old testament says many things. Like we can't eat shellfish, or fish without scales. Or weasels.

Are those things still current and valid?

I don't take absolutely every single thing that is written in the Bible literally (perhaps I should, but I don't). I take the majority of what's written in it literally, but not everything.

If I did take everything literally, I would be condemning all sorts of people to capital punishment, when I don't even agree with it for murderers.

However, God's covenant with the Jewish people is something that I do take literally and it's one of the most important parts of the Bible, in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the relationship that God has with the Jewish people and the claim that they have to that land is valid forever.


Not gonna go into the rest of the post as we are clearly living on differnet planets our worldview is so far apart.

However I'm curious on the technicalities of what you mention....how do the Jewish people as a whole 'turn to Jesus'?? In the face of extinction at the hands of the devils work how exactly do they save themselves?
Do you mean that all Jews need to instantly convert to Christianity to survive....do they hold a referendum, make a collective do or die decision on live TV by text vote or is their a head rabbi who decides for all??
How does a whole religion suddenly 'turn to Jesus'?

Personally I think it's fair to say that if this does all come to pass and it is an effective christian conversion that's required to save the Jews at their moment of peril I would worry about their saftey, big time!!

The way I see it is, the Jews have a special relationship (a covenant) with God but they have let Him down by their refusal to accept His son as their saviour. Ever since then, they have suffered and as I have said to Betty Boop above, they are not currently fighting against Hamas, Iran or any of their other enemies, they are fighting against God. These enemies will eventually launch an attack on Israel that will cause them a lot of pain and anguish but it will NOT completely wipe the Jewish people out, which is their enemies' ultimate aim. It is only after this attack has happened that the Jewish people will finally turn to Jesus and ask him for his help.

In terms of the first part of your post, for what it's worth I agree with your views on Scottish independence and also what you have said about the Trade Unions. So perhaps our world view isn't THAT much apart after all. :wink:

[RyeSloan]

.

In terms of the first part of your post, for what it's worth I agree with your views on Scottish independence and also what you have said about the Trade Unions. So perhaps our world view isn't THAT much apart after all. :wink:

:shocked: :shocked: :greengrin

On this God/Jesus thing controlling the fate of the Jews with an invisible hand though Im struggling big time...Ill let others discuss the validity of such things I think!

One thing though, since you missed out the part on telling me exactly how the small band of remaining Jews collectively decide to turn to Jesus and save their nation, I'll plump for the idea that it will be done by text vote :greengrin :wink:

[Betty Boop]

September 25, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- NAZARETH : A local authority in Israel has announced that it is establishing a special team of youth counsellors and psychologists whose job it will be to identify young Jewish women who are dating Arab men and “rescue” them.

The move by the municipality of Petah Tikva, a city close to Tel Aviv, is the latest in a series of separate – and little discussed – initiatives from official bodies, rabbis, private organisations and groups of Israeli residents to try to prevent interracial dating and marriage.

In a related development, the Israeli media reported this month that residents of Pisgat Zeev, a large Jewish settlement in the midst of Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, had formed a vigilante-style patrol to stop Arab men from mixing with local Jewish girls.

Hostility to intimate relationships developing across Israel’s ethnic divide is shared by many Israeli Jews, who regard such behaviour as a threat to the state’s Jewishness. One of the few polls on the subject, in 2007, found that more than half of Israeli Jews believed intermarriage should be equated with “national treason”.

Since the state’s founding in 1948, analysts have noted, a series of legal and administrative measures have been taken by Israel to limit the possibilities of close links developing between Jewish and Arab citizens, the latter comprising a fifth of the population.

Largely segregated communities and separate education systems mean that there are few opportunities for young Arabs and Jews to become familiarised with each other. Even in the handful of “mixed cities”, Arab residents are usually confined to separate neighbourhoods.

In addition, civil marriage is banned in Israel, meaning that in the small number of cases where Jews and Arabs want to wed, they can do so only by leaving the country for a ceremony abroad. The marriage is recognised on the couple’s return.

Dr Yuval Yonay, a sociologist at Haifa University, said the number of interracial marriages was “too small to be studied”. “Separation between Jews and Arabs is so ingrained in Israeli society, it is surprising that anyone manages to escape these central controls.”

The team in Petah Tikva, a Jewish city of 200,000 residents, was created in direct response to news that two Jewish girls, aged 17 and 19, were accompanying a group of young Arab men when they allegedly beat a Jewish man, Leonard Karp, to death last month on a Tel Aviv beach. The older girl was from Petah Tikva.

The girls’ involvement with the Arab youths has revived general concern that a once-firm taboo against interracial dating is beginning to erode among some young people.

In sentiments widely shared, Mr Hakak, a spokesman for Petah Tikva municipality, said “Russian girls”, young Jewish women whose parents arrived in Israel over the past two decades, since the former Soviet Union collapsed, were particularly vulnerable to the attention of Arab men.

Dr Yonay said Russian women were less closed to the idea of relationships with Arab men because they “did not undergo the religious and Zionist education” to which more established Israeli Jews were subject.

Mr Hakak said the municipality had created a hotline that parents and friends of the Jewish women could use to inform on them.

“We can’t tell the girls what to do but we can send a psychologist to their home to offer them and their parents advice,” he said.

Motti Zaft, the deputy mayor, told the Ynet website that the municipality was also cracking down on city homeowners who illegally subdivide apartments to rent them cheaply to single Arab men looking for work in the Tel Aviv area. He estimated that several hundred Arab men had moved into the city as a result.

Petah Tikva’s hostility to Arab men mixing with local Jewish women is shared by other communities.
In Pisgat Zeev, a settlement of 40,000 Jews, some 35 Jewish men are reported to belong to a patrol known as “Fire for Judaism” that tries to stop interracial dating.

Unusually for a settlement, Pisgat Zeev has attracted a tiny but growing population of Arab families, both from East Jerusalem and from inside Israel. Because Pisgat Zeev sits within Jerusalem’s municipal borders, Arabs with Israeli residency rights can live there as long as Jewish settlers are willing to rent to them.

One member, who identified himself as Moshe to the Jerusalem Post newspaper, said: “Our goal is to be in contact with these girls and try to explain to them the dangers of what they’re getting themselves into. In the last 10 years, 60 girls from Pisgat Zeev have gone into [Palestinian] villages [in the West Bank]. And most of them aren’t heard from after that.”

He denied that violence or threats were used against Arab men.
Last year, the municipality of Kiryat Gat, a town of 50,000 Jews in southern Israel, launched a programme in schools to warn Jewish girls of the dangers of dating local Bedouin men. The girls were shown a video titled Sleeping with the Enemy, which describes mixed couples as an “unnatural phenomenon”.

Haim Shalom, head of the municipality’s welfare department, is filmed saying: “The girls, in their innocence, go with the exploitative Arab.”

In 2004, posters sprang up all over the northern town of Safed warning Jewish women that dating Arab men would lead to “beatings, hard drugs, prostitution and crime”.
Safed’s chief rabbi, Shmuel Eliyahu, told a local newspaper that the “seducing” of Jewish girls was “another form of war” by Arab men.

Both Kiryat Gat and Safed’s campaigns were supported by a religious organisation called Yad L’achim, which runs an anti-assimilation team publicly dedicated to “saving” Jewish women.

According to its website, the organisation receives more than 100 calls a month about Jewish women living with Arab men, both in Israel and the West Bank. It launches “military-like rescues [of the women] from hostile Arab villages” in co-ordination with the police and army.

“The Jewish soul is a precious, all-too-rare resource, and we are not prepared to give up on even a single one,” says the website.

[Sir David Gray]

:shocked: :shocked: :greengrin

On this God/Jesus thing controlling the fate of the Jews with an invisible hand though Im struggling big time...Ill let others discuss the validity of such things I think!

One thing though, since you missed out the part on telling me exactly how the small band of remaining Jews collectively decide to turn to Jesus and save their nation, I'll plump for the idea that it will be done by text vote :greengrin :wink:

I don't know the details of how it will happen, I just think that I have a fair idea of what will happen.

[Sir David Gray]

Another step closer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8279616.stm) to how I think things will end up.

[Dashing Bob S]

However, I'm not too sure how it could be seen as blasphemous for me to comment on this debate, when all I'm doing is stating what I believe is happening and will happen in this conflict. Perhaps you could explain that to me.

Surely as a Christian you'd believe that it's not your place to pass comment on the will of God?

[Betty Boop]

Another step closer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8279616.stm) to how I think things will end up.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23591.htm

[LiverpoolHibs]

Good article from the Guardian a couple of days ago about land seizures in the West Bank. A man who denies the existence of Palestinians is largely responsible for judging on the legality of seizures and settlements.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/west-bank-jews-army-judge

Major Adrian Agassi did not make the connection between the Bible, the land and the Jews when, fresh out of university, he left England for Israel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/israel) in search of his roots. He was not even a practising Jew.

But over the past quarter of a century, the Israeli army lawyer and then military judge at the forefront of arguably the most significant battle in the occupied West Bank – the confiscation of Palestinian land for the construction of Jewish settlements – has come to see himself as in service of a higher duty.

In an unusually frank interview, which offers insights into the melding of religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion), politics and law that underpins land seizures in the occupied territories, Agassi has laid out his belief that Israel has a biblical claim to territory beyond its borders and that he, even as an immigrant, has a right to live on it when those born there do not.

"When we [Israelis] say that this is a political conflict, then we lose the battle," he told the Guardian, adding that it should be remembered that the ancient land of Israel is "given to us by the Bible, not by some United Nations".

Agassi, one of the most important officials in the military courts wielding authority over large parts of the West Bank, says settling Jews on lands that made up ancient Israel stands above all other biblical commandments and only when it is done can they have "a promised land and a promised life".

"You say that these lands 'passed into Jewish hands'. Others would say that they came back into Jewish hands. Others would say that they are obviously ours, inherently," he said. It was, he claims, a mistake to call it the State of Israel. "If we would have named it the State of Jews, the Arabs would have understood that this land belongs to the Jews."

Agassi served in the legal department that oversaw the confiscation of land in the West Bank to build Jewish settlements and was then appointed to the military court that decided Palestinian appeals against the seizure of their property. The Palestinians almost never won. His court also ruled on legal disputes between Jewish settlers and Palestinians.

Agassi denies his credo affected his legal judgments but his court was considered so biased by some critics that on one occasion the military prosecution, in an unusual step, appealed against Agassi's ruling in favour of settlers to Israel's high court.

Agassi was born in Southgate, London, in 1964 to a family of rabbis from Baghdad. He studied law in the UK and emigrated to Israel at the age of 24 "with £500 and all of Bob Dylan's records". Four years later he found himself dragged into the first Palestinian uprising, the intifada, as a legal adviser to the military in the West Bank.

"I was very young and suddenly found myself in front of the stones and Molotov cocktail and the hate. I studied law, I had a liberal education, but I was at war and I knew we were right," he said. "I was 26 years old, I came from a foreign land. Those actions guarded our existence in the land of Israel. It lies at the heart of the conflict. It's a legitimate means to continue the works of our forefathers Abraham, Joseph and David."

Agassi says a peace agreement with the Palestinians "goes against nature" because as far as he can see nothing had changed in last 4,000 years in the land of Israel, and that back to biblical times Arabs and Jews were at each other's throats.

Agassi uses the term Arabs because he claims Palestinians do not exist. He came to this conclusion over the past decade while serving as a special judge for administrative arrest. Based on confidential intelligence reports, without trial, Agassi sent several hundred Palestinians – deemed to be terrorists or security threats – to prison for six months or more.

"You read the raw intelligence material and you see that most of them are moved by religious doctrine, not by a political one. They use religion in order to justify killing as many Jews as possible. Is this not a religious war?"

Is it ok to be slightly outraged, morally, at this?

[hibbybrian]

I believe the land belongs to the Jews because of what it states here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2034:1-34:15&version=NIV). I realise, and completely understand, that people who view the Bible as a load of rubbish will not see it that way.

As far as this particular claim is concerned, I believe it obviously goes all the way back to Biblical times and is valid for all time.

The passage immediately before your link:

And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, 33:51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; 33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: 33:53 And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it. 33:54 And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man’s inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit. 33:55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. 33:56 Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.

[Betty Boop]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/200910282211496109.html :grr: The Israelis still breaking International Law.

[Betty Boop]

Who Will Be Next?

The Eviction Of Palestinian Families Continue

The United Nations, the United States and the European Union have all called on Israel to stop the illegal eviction of Palestinians and the demolition of their homes.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, urged Israel to end its "provocative actions" in East Jerusalem, while calling for it to freeze all settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.

Despite that, the sight of Palestinians in East Jerusalem being forced out of their homes has become an all too familiar scene.

Video - Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland reports from occupied East Jerusalem.

Posted November 17, 2009




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EISikrLcSw8&feature

[McIntosh]

I also believe that everything which happens between Israel and the Palestinians is played out under the watchful eye of a higher power and that they are in full control of everything that happens in this conflict.

I don't know what type of church you go to but clearly they don't grasp the meaning of the new covenant? If you are a bible based Christian please quote me the chapter and verse to support this statement. I noted you didn't reply to me quoting Matthew 26:52, King James Version, end-timers like yourself are so enamoured by a blind faith you don't let scripture get in the way of God's message of peace and love.

When I was young I was brought up as a Quacker and central to the inner light is fighting against injustice and inhumanity, for those reasons I wish to see the end of Israel as a sectarian state. I have no time for evangelicals who for mistaken interpretations support absolute wickedness.

[khib70]

I don't know what type of church you go to but clearly they don't grasp the meaning of the new covenant? If you are a bible based Christian please quote me the chapter and verse to support this statement. I noted you didn't reply to me quoting Matthew 26:52, King James Version, end-timers like yourself are so enamoured by a blind faith you don't let scripture get in the way of God's message of peace and love.

When I was young I was brought up as a Quacker and central to the inner light is fighting against injustice and inhumanity, for those reasons I wish to see the end of Israel as a sectarian state. I have no time for evangelicals who for mistaken interpretations support absolute wickedness.

Which will be why Quakers were sitting on their erses while everyone else was off "fighting against injustice and inhumanity" in World War 2 ?

[McIntosh]

Which will be why Quakers were sitting on their erses while everyone else was off "fighting against injustice and inhumanity" in World War 2 ?

Well I can't speak for them but during my time with Human Rights Watch I have been shot at once, survived two bombings and have been deported from three countries twice at gunpoint.

Some may say it is sad they missed and before the naysayers comment sadly, it is actually true. I wonder when and where you put your life on the line for anyone you didn't know. Remember going for a pint in the Old Salt on a Saturday night doesn't really qualify but as you love your shopping the struggles in the que at Tescos may qualify.

[khib70]

Well I can't speak for them but during my time with Human Rights Watch I have been shot at once, survived two bombings and have been deported from three countries twice at gunpoint.

Some may say it is sad they missed and before the naysayers comment sadly, it is actually true. I wonder when and where you put your life on the line for anyone you didn't know. Remember going for a pint in the Old Salt on a Saturday night doesn't really qualify but as you love your shopping the struggles in the que at Tescos may qualify.
I think nine years in the military qualifies me a bit better, actually, although it can get a bit rough in Tescos too.

[McIntosh]

I think nine years in the military qualifies me a bit better, actually, although it can get a bit rough in Tescos too.

Well we are all square then. This does explain your suport for the I.D.F. As an aside who did you serve with, if it was the R.A.F I owe you one for getting me out of Beirut in the early 80s.

Unsurpringly this was where I realised Israel must be destroyed as a sectarian state.

[RyeSloan]

When I was young I was brought up as a Quacker

Is your real name Frank Carson then?




Unsurpringly this was where I realised Israel must be destroyed as a sectarian state.

Destroyed? Didn't take you too long to move away from "God's message of peace and love" did it...a mighty two posts!

[McIntosh]

Destroyed? Didn't take you too long to move away from "God's message of peace and love" did it...a mighty two posts!

I repeat destroyed as a sectarian state! I never said Israel itself or its people. Apologises for any typo I am trying to edit some journals and I think I'm probably going word blind!

[RyeSloan]

I repeat destroyed as a sectarian state! I never said Israel itself or its people. Apologises for any typo I am trying to edit some journals and I think I'm probably going word blind!

And I repeat that using the word destroy can only suggest violence or actions against others will:

A quick dictionary search gives the following:

to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2. to put an end to; extinguish.
3. to kill; slay.
4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5. to defeat completely.

Now which of those definitions suggests "God's message of peace and love" again?

[da-robster]

And I repeat that using the word destroy can only suggest violence or actions against others will:

A quick dictionary search gives the following:

to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2. to put an end to; extinguish.
3. to kill; slay.
4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5. to defeat completely.

Now which of those definitions suggests "God's message of peace and love" again?

I think he meant number two to put an end to the sectarianism in the state of Israel.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't know what type of church you go to but clearly they don't grasp the meaning of the new covenant? If you are a bible based Christian please quote me the chapter and verse to support this statement. I noted you didn't reply to me quoting Matthew 26:52, King James Version, end-timers like yourself are so enamoured by a blind faith you don't let scripture get in the way of God's message of peace and love.

When I was young I was brought up as a Quacker and central to the inner light is fighting against injustice and inhumanity, for those reasons I wish to see the end of Israel as a sectarian state. I have no time for evangelicals who for mistaken interpretations support absolute wickedness.

I'm all for removing any type of religion from government, but do you think that states that are sectarian with other religions should equally be "destroyed", or is it just Israel?

[hibsbollah]

And I repeat that using the word destroy can only suggest violence or actions against others will:

A quick dictionary search gives the following:

to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2. to put an end to; extinguish.
3. to kill; slay.
4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5. to defeat completely.

Now which of those definitions suggests "God's message of peace and love" again?

I think youve got your pedantic head on today:wink: Its quite acceptable to use the phrase 'destroy a state' without intimating violence, as in the destruction of the apartheid state or the Soviet state.

[McIntosh]

And I repeat that using the word destroy can only suggest violence or actions against others will:

A quick dictionary search gives the following:

to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2. to put an end to; extinguish.
3. to kill; slay.
4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5. to defeat completely.

Now which of those definitions suggests "God's message of peace and love" again?

Perfectly consist, see number 2. Now I can't give you a gold star because you have been a wee bit petty.:wink:

[McIntosh]

I'm all for removing any type of religion from government, but do you think that states that are sectarian with other religions should equally be "destroyed", or is it just Israel?

I believe in secular governance, I am perfectly willing to accept limited theocracies such as the Vatican or Dharamsala. However, the litmus test even for sectarian states is the rights it affords to other faith or lifestyles within its borders - notional or real. Where alternatives are not respected and are violated the states deserve to fail or be replaced.

In the case of Israel its treatment of a subject people is complicated by a combination of religious mania and Zionism but the consequences remain the same it violates human rights on a major scale. There are many other states like Israel no better or worse all equally guilty, I await the day that the propogators of these crimes are held to account in the Hague.

I have tried to be clear, I am anti-Zionist but no one could accuse me of anti-semitism.

[hibsbollah]

...you can also 'destroy' a kebab, or a pint, with no violent intent.

[Twa Cairpets]

I believe in secular governance, I am perfectly willing to accept limited theocracies such as the Vatican or Dharamsala. However, the litmus test even for sectarian states is the rights it affords to other faith or lifestyles within its borders - notional or real. Where alternatives are not respected and are violated the states deserve to fail or be replaced.

In the case of Israel its treatment of a subject people is complicated by a combination of religious mania and Zionism but the consequences remain the same it violates human rights on a major scale. There are many other states like Israel no better or worse all equally guilty, I await the day that the propogators of these crimes are held to account in the Hague.

I have tried to be clear, I am anti-Zionist but no one could accuse me of anti-semitism.

I am not hugely up on the particular nuances of Zionism/Judaism, but my basic understanding is that Zionism is a primarily a political position/grouping of jews whose sole goal is the establisment/defence of a jewish homeland, whereas judaism is of course the religion itself. All Zionists are jews, but all jews are not Zionists. Is that right?

So if that is right, and if the modern state of Israel was run along non-Zionist lines (but potentially along religious lines), would that be acceptable to you? I havent any strong position on this, but calling for the destruction of the State of Israel (particularly without suggesting what should be there in its stead), does I would suggest open you to accusations of anti-semitism, whether you are or not, as your desired destruction would have a massive negative impact on the non-Zionist jewish population.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I am not hugely up on the particular nuances of Zionism/Judaism, but my basic understanding is that Zionism is a primarily a political position/grouping of jews whose sole goal is the establisment/defence of a jewish homeland, whereas judaism is of course the religion itself. All Zionists are jews, but all jews are not Zionists. Is that right?

Have you met FalkirkHibee?

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

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

[McIntosh]

So if that is right, and if the modern state of Israel was run along non-Zionist lines (but potentially along religious lines), would that be acceptable to you? I havent any strong position on this, but calling for the destruction of the State of Israel (particularly without suggesting what should be there in its stead), does I would suggest open you to accusations of anti-semitism, whether you are or not, as your desired destruction would have a massive negative impact on the non-Zionist jewish population.

The only acceptable solution to me would be a secular state which guarantees religious freedom to all its citzens. I have never called for the destruction of the state of Israel, I have consistently called for the destruction of the sectarian state (nature) of Israel. I have aways advocated a one state solution, in my opinion the situation has now went far beyond a two state solution, particularly in relation to water resources.

[Twa Cairpets]

Have you met FalkirkHibee?

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

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

No. I think if I did I may have to go and lie in a darkened room for fear of attack from any one of a dozen completely irrational fears, waiting for the Rapture armed with only a handful of homeopathic pills.

(Just messing with you Falkirk)

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------


The only acceptable solution to me would be a secular state which guarantees religious freedom to all its citzens. I have never called for the destruction of the state of Israel, I have consistently called for the destruction of the sectarian state (nature) of Israel. I have aways advocated a one state solution, in my opinion the situation has now went far beyond a two state solution, particularly in relation to water resources.

That seems fair enough

[RyeSloan]

I think youve got your pedantic head on today:wink: Its quite acceptable to use the phrase 'destroy a state' without intimating violence, as in the destruction of the apartheid state or the Soviet state.

I'm a serial pendant, you should know that by now!!


Perfectly consist, see number 2. Now I can't give you a gold star because you have been a wee bit petty.:wink:

Far form petty, I merely found your repeated use of the word destroy indicated something quite removed from peace and love....still not sure that you can exhibit peace and love to something when you want it destroyed but I suppose, reading your subsequent posts, your peace and love is conditional so that's fair enough..


...you can also 'destroy' a kebab, or a pint, with no violent intent.

Really.....you should see my cousin 'destroy' a kebab after a few pints, it can only be described as a brutal and violent attack!! :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm a serial pendant, you should know that by now!!



Cant work out where the typo is - are you perchance a necklace made with cornflakes?

[--------]

Cant work out where the typo is - are you perchance a necklace made with cornflakes?


Maybe he's a soap-opera - every episode ends on a cliffhanger? :cool2:

:wink:

[McIntosh]

Far form petty, I merely found your repeated use of the word destroy indicated something quite removed from peace and love....still not sure that you can exhibit peace and love to something when you want it destroyed but I suppose, reading your subsequent posts, your peace and love is conditional so that's fair enough..

That your interpretation not mines, my own statements are very clear but you seem to deliberately choose to distort them, possibly to support your own agenda.

Regardless of this, a straightforward question for you - is sectarianism ever acceptable in your view?

[Betty Boop]

That your interpretation not mines, my own statements are very clear but you for your agenda are distorting them.

Regardless of this, a straightforward question for you - is sectarianism acceptable in your view?

I notice that you seem to focus on sectarianism, but don't you think Israel is also guilty of apartheid?

[McIntosh]

I notice that you seem to focus on sectarianism, but don't you think Israel is also guilty of apartheid?


The Palestinians and the Israelis are in general ethnically and racially the same, the only difference between them is cultural, hence they are sectarian. There is a strong argument that the Palestinans are the originals inhibants of Judea and Sumeria whom have merely converted to Christianity and then Islam over the last two thousand years - what an irony. The genetic evidence strongly supports this position (Finklestein et al.)

However, I would agree with you that the Israelis have clearly constructed a vicious apartheid type state.

[(((Fergus)))]

The Palestinians and the Israelis are in general ethnically and racially the same, the only difference between them is cultural, hence they are sectarian. There is a strong argument that the Palestinans are the originals inhibants of Judea and Sumeria whom have merely converted to Christianity and then Islam over the last two thousand years - what an irony. The genetic evidence strongly supports this position (Finklestein et al.)

However, I would agree with you that the Israelis have clearly constructed a vicious apartheid type state.

Why did they do that?

[da-robster]

Why did they do that?

Surely because they invaded another country, which they had an ancient claim to of similar legitamacy as the claim Rome has to europe,forcefully displaced the natives, made enemies with the neighbours and then had to build walls to stop the arabs fighting back.

[Tazio]

The Palestinians and the Israelis are in general ethnically and racially the same, the only difference between them is cultural, hence they are sectarian. There is a strong argument that the Palestinans are the originals inhibants of Judea and Sumeria whom have merely converted to Christianity and then Islam over the last two thousand years - what an irony. The genetic evidence strongly supports this position (Finklestein et al.)

However, I would agree with you that the Israelis have clearly constructed a vicious apartheid type state.

The pint in bold type is a flaw in a string of well constructed posts. The modern Israeli is in the main of European origin, people such as Menahim Begin and Moshe Dyan were from Eastern European stock. There are now vast amounts of Ashkanazi Jews in Israel. And you can get an automatic Israeli passport if you have Jewish relatives as far back as grandparents. A bit like the international football regulation.

[McIntosh]

The pint in bold type is a flaw in a string of well constructed posts. The modern Israeli is in the main of European origin, people such as Menahim Begin and Moshe Dyan were from Eastern European stock. There are now vast amounts of Ashkanazi Jews in Israel. And you can get an automatic Israeli passport if you have Jewish relatives as far back as grandparents. A bit like the international football regulation.

You have raised a very good point, I tried to cover it by caveating my original point by stating in general. The reason for this was the very complexity of the x chromosone argument. In fact your post logically strengthens the argument that the palestinians in general are the undiluted host community whose identity has altered within a historical and cultural context.

A good example of these changes in identity is is the anglo-saxon debate - historically an argument was forwarded that England was invaded by the anglo-saxons on a large scale with the host community being forced westward. There is now an academic consensus which contends that an invasion did not take place on a major scale but was a cultural phenomenon, similar to the Americanisation of the Western world in the twentieth century (Friedmann's 'M' theory).

As for the Ashkanazi as you will be aware they come predominately from the former USSR and the overwhelming majority have arrived in the last twenty years. However, genetically they have the weakest ontological claim to be 'Jewish' their 'Jewishness' was arrived at by conversation. I personally would never dismiss their claim to 'Jewishness' as their conversation occured nearly a millenia ago but in certain orthodox traditions as you will know this is not the case.

Regardless of this, a very complicated and contested debate you can see now why for the reasons of simplicity I try to keep certain statements simple. Thanks for bearing with this rather laboured post.

[RyeSloan]

That your interpretation not mines, my own statements are very clear but you seem to deliberately choose to distort them, possibly to support your own agenda.

Regardless of this, a straightforward question for you - is sectarianism ever acceptable in your view?

Nothing deliberate I can assure you and unlike yourself I don't have an 'agenda' regarding the middle east at all.

As for your question, no I would assume it's not and wouldn't be to most fair minded people. ..although following your theory of non violent destruction I suppose people can be 'sectarian' in a dogmatic sense without perpetrating ills on others. However I am assuming you mean in a bigoted and intolerant manner and again I would say definately not.

Kwestion next....:greengrin

[McIntosh]

Nothing deliberate I can assure you and unlike yourself I don't have an 'agenda' regarding the middle east at all.

As for your question, no I would assume it's not and wouldn't be to most fair minded people. ..although following your theory of non violent destruction I suppose people can be 'sectarian' in a dogmatic sense without perpetrating ills on others. However I am assuming you mean in a bigoted and intolerant manner and again I would say definately not.

Kwestion next....:greengrin

:thumbsup:Good, I can now sign you up for the next demonstration outside the Israeli embassy - I take that is a given now?

[khib70]

:thumbsup:Good, I can now sign you up for the next demonstration outside the Israeli embassy - I take that is a given now?
If it's anything like the "demonstration" at Parkhead, signing him up will double your numbers.

[McIntosh]

If it's anything like the "demonstration" at Parkhead, signing him up will double your numbers.

Bigger crowds than at Easter Road -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr9AwNSVSGs

The nearest you get to the Embassy is the bottom of the boulevard - at this demonstation the crowd was so big that it went as far back as the Iranian embassy which is about two blocks away - they make a nice cup of tea!

It would be good to get you there Khib70 you do need to get out more, it will be a break from the shopping. Remember to bring the biscuits.

[Betty Boop]

Bigger crowds than at Easter Road -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr9AwNSVSGs

The nearest you get to the Embassy is the bottom of the boulevard - at this demonstation the crowd was so big that it went as far back as the Iranian embassy which is about two blocks away - they make a nice cup of tea!

It would be good to get you there Khib70 you do need to get out more, it will be a break from the shopping. Remember to bring the biscuits.

Good to see Jewish demonstrators out in support of the Palestinians. :agree:

[(((Fergus)))]

Good to see Jewish demonstrators out in support of the Palestinians. :agree:

I was wondering whether the opposite was also true - whether there were Palestinians who supported Israel - and it seems there are:

"In the view of Fadal Tahabub, a member of the Palestinian National Council, an estimated 70 percent of the 200,000 Arab residents of Jerusalem preferred to remain under Israeli sovereignty. A social worker living in Ras al-‘Amud, one of the areas possibly falling under PA control, said: "If a secret poll was conducted, I am sure an overwhelming majority of Jerusalem Arabs would say they would prefer to stay in Israel."

http://www.danielpipes.org/2534/the-hell-of-israel-is-better-than-the-paradise-of-arafat

[Betty Boop]

I was wondering whether the opposite was also true - whether there were Palestinians who supported Israel - and it seems there are:

"In the view of Fadal Tahabub, a member of the Palestinian National Council, an estimated 70 percent of the 200,000 Arab residents of Jerusalem preferred to remain under Israeli sovereignty. A social worker living in Ras al-‘Amud, one of the areas possibly falling under PA control, said: "If a secret poll was conducted, I am sure an overwhelming majority of Jerusalem Arabs would say they would prefer to stay in Israel."

http://www.danielpipes.org/2534/the-hell-of-israel-is-better-than-the-paradise-of-arafat

Daniel Pipes- an advocate of the annihilation of Palestinians? :rolleyes:

[(((Fergus)))]

Daniel Pipes- an advocate of the annihilation of Palestinians? :rolleyes:

Don't know anything about the guy, not the validity of his sources, but that's a common problem with stuff on the web. I'm guessing he didn't make the stats and quotes up?

BTW where does he advocate the annihilation of Palestinians?

[McIntosh]

I was wondering whether the opposite was also true - whether there were Palestinians who supported Israel - and it seems there are:

"In the view of Fadal Tahabub, a member of the Palestinian National Council, an estimated 70 percent of the 200,000 Arab residents of Jerusalem preferred to remain under Israeli sovereignty. A social worker living in Ras al-‘Amud, one of the areas possibly falling under PA control, said: "If a secret poll was conducted, I am sure an overwhelming majority of Jerusalem Arabs would say they would prefer to stay in Israel."

http://www.danielpipes.org/2534/the-hell-of-israel-is-better-than-the-paradise-of-arafat


Sensible people, Isarel has nearly a half a million Palestinian citzens who serve in its armed forces and don't wan't to leave its excellent health and education systems - would you? This is a fundamental problem with a two state solution which proposes to adjusts this country on sectarian or ethnic grounds. A secular one state solution is the only way I believe to extend universal rights to all.

[hibsbollah]

Don't know anything about the guy, not the validity of his sources, but that's a common problem with stuff on the web. I'm guessing he didn't make the stats and quotes up?

BTW where does he advocate the annihilation of Palestinians?

I googled him and he doesnt seem to have much nice to say about Muslims at any point, and is usually wheeled out in debates to argue a neo-con line.

As you say though, that doesnt necessarily make his stats wrong.

[(((Fergus)))]

Sensible people, Isarel has nearly a half a million Palestinian citzens who serve in its armed forces and don't wan't to leave its excellent health and education systems - would you? This is a fundamental problem with a two state solution which proposes to adjusts this country on sectarian or ethnic grounds. A secular one state solution is the only way I believe to extend universal rights to all.

Trouble with a secular one-state solution is that it doesn't give jews the security they - the secular ones at least - require. Poland was once a country where the jews had remarkable freedoms but eventually the population turned against them. Whichever country they go to, eventually the population turns on them. At current rates of growth, the arabs would eventually become the majority in Israel. This is the reason why so many jews want a jewish-dominated Israel. They can't trust other nations to look after them, especially not Europe. You can argue that there are better, more spiritual, roads to security but that does not change the way these people feel right now.

[RyeSloan]

:thumbsup:Good, I can now sign you up for the next demonstration outside the Israeli embassy - I take that is a given now?

Ha ha you have taken that much too far.......:greengrin

[McIntosh]

Ha ha you have taken that much too far.......:greengrin

I am sure your wanting to go, your just in denial :wink:

[McIntosh]

Trouble with a secular one-state solution is that it doesn't give jews the security they - the secular ones at least - require. Poland was once a country where the jews had remarkable freedoms but eventually the population turned against them. Whichever country they go to, eventually the population turns on them. At current rates of growth, the arabs would eventually become the majority in Israel. This is the reason why so many jews want a jewish-dominated Israel. They can't trust other nations to look after them, especially not Europe. You can argue that there are better, more spiritual, roads to security but that does not change the way these people feel right now.

As always you make very considered points. Your comments expose the trap that has bediviled post war politics. The narrative of the 1930s which has been projected unthinkingly on our own times. It has created a preemptive approach based upon fear, as the recent Iraq enquiry has exposed it bears no relation to reality - Saddam was not Hitler, clearly in terms of capacity or arguably in terms of intent. This is a salient point the Palestinians in general like the overwhelming majority of Israelis are concerned with peace and prosperity and it is this that is the basis for building trust. Fear only flourishes in the abscence of trust, I am not suggesting for a moment that this is an easy road to pursue. However the only means to a peaceful end to this conflict is one based on mutual respect and trust. President Kennedy states this more elequently than I can,

For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

[Betty Boop]

Don't know anything about the guy, not the validity of his sources, but that's a common problem with stuff on the web. I'm guessing he didn't make the stats and quotes up?

BTW where does he advocate the annihilation of Palestinians?

I have read quite a lot about him, he is a renowned Islamophobe, but you are right, that doesn't mean to say that he makes his stats up. However this article from the BBC paints a different picture of the Palestinian or Israeli Arabs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8165338.stm


Daniel Pipes

http://www.voltairenet.org/article136260.html

[(((Fergus)))]

I have read quite a lot about him, he is a renowned Islamophobe, but you are right, that doesn't mean to say that he makes his stats up. However this article from the BBC paints a different picture of the Palestinian or Israeli Arabs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8165338.stm


Daniel Pipes

http://www.voltairenet.org/article136260.html

The only statement in that article that possibly contradicts the Pipes statistics and quotes is that the majority of citizens of East Jerusalem have refused Israeli citizenship. Unfortunately, it does not examine why this may be the case.

While the conditions for Israeli arabs are, in most respects (i.e. disregarding exemption from military service), unfavourable compared with those of Israeli jews, they may still be preferable to conditions of 'equality' under a Palestinian Authority or indeed any other arab government. Are Israeli arabs prevented from emigrating to the West Bank, Gaza or neighbouring arab countries? Of course, people generally do not wish to leave their homes, however when conditions become intolerable, they do - not least the jews.

Regarding the rest of that BBC article, inequalities similar to those in Israel exist in most arab/muslim countries, i.e., muslim national holidays only, tacit and open discrimination against minorities. Jews in particular have suffered from and continue to suffer from this inequality. At least now there exist countries where both arab and jew can be (relatively) safe from each other's oppression.

[hibsbollah]

The only statement in that article that possibly contradicts the Pipes statistics and quotes is that the majority of citizens of East Jerusalem have refused Israeli citizenship. Unfortunately, it does not examine why this may be the case.

While the conditions for Israeli arabs are, in most respects (i.e. disregarding exemption from military service), unfavourable compared with those of Israeli jews, they may still be preferable to conditions of 'equality' under a Palestinian Authority or indeed any other arab government. Are Israeli arabs prevented from emigrating to the West Bank, Gaza or neighbouring arab countries? Of course, people generally do not wish to leave their homes, however when conditions become intolerable, they do - not least the jews.

Regarding the rest of that BBC article, inequalities similar to those in Israel exist in most arab/muslim countries, i.e., muslim national holidays only, tacit and open discrimination against minorities. Jews in particular have suffered from and continue to suffer from this inequality. At least now there exist countries where both arab and jew can be (relatively) safe from each other's oppression.

A lot of the quotes and stats refer to criticisms or dislike of the Palestinian authority or Fatah, which was and is a totally corrupt and ineffective Govt. Pipes makes the leap from this dislike of Arafat to then saying 'Many Palestinians already understood the virtues of Israeli political life decades ago' which is a) unsubstantiated and b)a bit cheeky to say the least. There are quotes from individuals, which I suppose gives a bit of substantiation, but the content ('Jews are more human than Arabs' for example) makes me wonder if the interviewees have an agenda to pedal.

Some of it is just beyond parody though; trying to justify the superiority of Israeli democracy by saying 'Salaries in Israel are about five times higher than in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Israel's social security system has no parallel on the Palestinian side' is hilarious....Isnt it obvious why that is the case?

I can see why he's on foxnews so often, I bet they love him:wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

A lot of the quotes and stats refer to criticisms or dislike of the Palestinian authority or Fatah, which was and is a totally corrupt and ineffective Govt. Pipes makes the leap from this dislike of Arafat to then saying 'Many Palestinians already understood the virtues of Israeli political life decades ago' which is a) unsubstantiated and b)a bit cheeky to say the least. There are quotes from individuals, which I suppose gives a bit of substantiation, but the content ('Jews are more human than Arabs' for example) makes me wonder if the interviewees have an agenda to pedal.

Some of it is just beyond parody though; trying to justify the superiority of Israeli democracy by saying 'Salaries in Israel are about five times higher than in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Israel's social security system has no parallel on the Palestinian side' is hilarious....Isnt it obvious why that is the case?

I can see why he's on foxnews so often, I bet they love him:wink:

Yes, it does seem to be a case of cupboard love as in Northern Ireland. As long as people are comfortably off, they seem lose interest in fighting. While part of the reason that Israel is better off than the PA territories is undoubtedly to do with US funding, I have to say that Israelis in general have an entrepreneurial spirit (and access to capital) that the Palestinians cannot match. During my visits to both parts of Israel/Palestine, I met arabs from both sides of this argument, i.e., those who were happy to "collaborate" and those who were not. What the overall percentages are, I cannot say. There are however areas of Israel proper with an arab majority, yet these are relatively quiet compared with Gaza and to a lesser extent the West Bank.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Arab_population_israel_2000_en.png

[hibsbollah]

Yes, it does seem to be a case of cupboard love as in Northern Ireland. As long as people are comfortably off, they seem lose interest in fighting. While part of the reason that Israel is better off than the PA territories is undoubtedly to do with US funding, I have to say that Israelis in general have an entrepreneurial spirit (and access to capital) that the Palestinians cannot match. During my visits to both parts of Israel/Palestine, I met arabs from both sides of this argument, i.e., those who were happy to "collaborate" and those who were not. What the overall percentages are, I cannot say. There are however areas of Israel proper with an arab majority, yet these are relatively quiet compared with Gaza and to a lesser extent the West Bank.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Arab_population_israel_2000_en.png

I remember you said you'd travelled over there, which is why I respect your opinions on the subject:greengrin The occupied territories are subject to an economic blockade by Israel, so the people there could all the entrepreneurial spirit of John Rockefeller and still not construct an economy.

[(((Fergus)))]

I remember you said you'd travelled over there, which is why I respect your opinions on the subject:greengrin The occupied territories are subject to an economic blockade by Israel, so the people there could all the entrepreneurial spirit of John Rockefeller and still not construct an economy.

If you listen to the stories of the people who founded Israel, mostly Eastern European jews who survived WWII, you hear that very many of them were (upper) middle class people who were running businesses and employing the indigenous Ukrainians, Poles, etc.* I see the same pattern in Israel where they have built up hi-tech industries in marked contrast to the likes of Syria, Jordan and Egypt. I'm not saying that this go-getter attitude is or is not the ideal of human existence, however it does generate a level of material comfort whose appeal, it seems, is palliating the grievances of some sections of the arab population.

* Much of the resentment in Europe against the jews came from the fact that they were more successful economically than the local populations - despite the restrictions, legal and otherwise. When the nazis came to power, the majority of the local populations were only to happy to assist in the "redistribution of wealth".

[hibsbollah]

If you listen to the stories of the people who founded Israel, mostly Eastern European jews who survived WWII, you hear that very many of them were (upper) middle class people who were running businesses and employing the indigenous Ukrainians, Poles, etc.* I see the same pattern in Israel where they have built up hi-tech industries in marked contrast to the likes of Syria, Jordan and Egypt. I'm not saying that this go-getter attitude is or is not the ideal of human existence, however it does generate a level of material comfort whose appeal, it seems, is palliating the grievances of some sections of the arab population.

* Much of the resentment in Europe against the jews came from the fact that they were more successful economically than the local populations - despite the restrictions, legal and otherwise. When the nazis came to power, the majority of the local populations were only to happy to assist in the "redistribution of wealth".

Yep, from the Roman Empire through the First Crusade and the Merchant of Venice, theyve always been disliked for being 'good businessmen'. Hard to know whether its based on reality or stereotypes though.

[McIntosh]

Yep, from the Roman Empire through the First Crusade and the Merchant of Venice, theyve always been disliked for being 'good businessmen'. Hard to know whether its based on reality or stereotypes though.

There is possibly connected to usury being prohibited in medieval Europe and the middle East. The Jews being neither Christian or Muslim were allowed to charge interest, hence the development of Jewish Banking houses. This culture of 'business' only developed due to historical trade restrictions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

However, Israel's current economic position owes more to billion of dollars of economic subsidy and industrial military espionage on an unprecedented level.

[Betty Boop]

An arrest warrant was issued yesterday in a London court, for Tzipi Livni the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. She is accused of war crimes, however she cancelled her visit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8413234.stm

[(((Fergus)))]

There is possibly connected to usury being prohibited in medieval Europe and the middle East. The Jews being neither Christian or Muslim were allowed to charge interest, hence the development of Jewish Banking houses. This culture of 'business' only developed due to historical trade restrictions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

However, Israel's current economic position owes more to billion of dollars of economic subsidy and industrial military espionage on an unprecedented level.

A fair whack of that economic support is spent on the military however one should not overlook what the remainder (if any does remain) is invested in:

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

Contrast with the neighbouring muslim states, where any major wealth is generated through sale of a natural resource, often/usually with technological aid from foreign companies. What do they invest that wealth in? A lot of it goes on vanity projects.

Personally, I think this discrepancy is largely due to Jewish culture which is based on the concept of ongoing self-improvement through individual and collective action (mitzvot).

It could also be a result of ongoing oppression which - as when a tree is pruned - stimulates life as a response.

[hibsbollah]

A fair whack of that economic support is spent on the military however one should not overlook what the remainder (if any does remain) is invested in:

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

Contrast with the neighbouring muslim states, where any major wealth is generated through sale of a natural resource, often/usually with technological aid from foreign companies. What do they invest that wealth in? A lot of it goes on vanity projects.

Personally, I think this discrepancy is largely due to Jewish culture which is based on the concept of ongoing self-improvement through individual and collective action (mitzvot).

It could also be a result of ongoing oppression which - as when a tree is pruned - stimulates life as a response.

Your tree pruning analogy I like (nothing quite like a gardening analogy:greengrin) but what oppression and by whom?

[khib70]

Your tree pruning analogy I like (nothing quite like a gardening analogy:greengrin) but what oppression and by whom?
You're not serious, surely?:confused:

In the words of Bob Dylan:

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.

[McIntosh]

There is hope:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8434174.stm

[LiverpoolHibs]

There is hope:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8434174.stm

Hmmm, I think it's a tad depressing when that becomes symptomatic of 'hope'.

[Betty Boop]

CAIRO: An 85-year-old Holocaust survivor is among a group of grandmothers on a hunger strike to protest against Egypt's refusal to allow a Gaza solidarity march to proceed.

Hedy Epstein, an American activist, and other grandmothers participating in the Gaza Freedom March began their hunger strike on Monday.

''I've never done this before. I don't know how my body will react, but I'll do whatever it takes,'' Ms Epstein said, surrounded by hundreds of protesters outside the United Nations building in Cairo.

Egyptian authorities had said they would not allow any of the 1300 protesters from 42 countries to take part in the march to enter the Gaza Strip through the Rafah border crossing.

High-ranking officers and riot police were placed on the Nile bank, where the UN building is and where hundreds of Freedom March participants asked the UN to mediate with Cairo to let their convoy into Gaza.

They met the UN resident co-ordinator in Cairo, James Rawley, ''and we are waiting for a response'', a Philippines senator, Walden Bello, told protesters. ''We will wait as long as it takes.''

Egypt has increased security along the 380-kilometre road to the Rafah border crossing, a security official said. ''Measures have been tightened along the road from Cairo to Rafah to prevent activists from the Gaza Freedom March from staging the march,'' the official said.

Separately, organisers of another aid convoy trying to reach the blockaded enclave - known as Viva Palestina and led by the British MP George Galloway - said it would head to Syria on its way to Egypt after being stranded in Jordan's Red Sea port of Aqaba for five days.

Turkey dispatched an official on Saturday to try to convince the Egyptians to allow Viva Palestina to go through the Red Sea port of Nuweiba - the most direct route - but Egypt insisted the convoy may enter only through El-Arish, on its Mediterranean coast.

The Gaza Freedom March and Viva Palestina were planning to arrive one year after Israel's devastating war on Gaza that killed about 1300 Palestinians. Thirteen Israelis were also killed.

Agence France-Presse

[LiverpoolHibs]

Seumas Milne (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/07/egypt-gaza-strip-viva-palestina) on the Egyptian treatment of the Viva Palestina aid convoy to Gaza.

If an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor had gone on hunger strike in support of a besieged people in another part of the world, and hundreds of mostly western protesters had been stoned and beaten by police, you can be sure we'd have heard all about it. But because that is what's been happening in western-backed Egypt, rather than Iran, and the people the protesters are supporting are the Palestinians of Gaza instead of, say, Tibetans, most people in Europe and north America know nothing about it.

For the last fortnight, two groups of hundreds of activists have been battling with Egyptian police and officials to cross into the Gaza Strip to show solidarity with the blockaded population on the first anniversary of Israel's devastating onslaught. Last night, George Galloway's Viva Palestina (http://www.vivapalestina.org/home.htm) 500-strong convoy of medical aid was finally allowed in, minus 50 of its 200 vehicles, after being repeatedly blocked, diverted and intimidated by Egyptian security – including a violent assault in the Egyptian port of El Arish on Tuesday night which left dozens injured, despite the participation of one British and 10 Turkish MPs.

That followed an attempted "Gaza freedom march" by 1,400 protesters from more than 40 countries, only 84 of whom were allowed across the border – which is what led Hedy Epstein, both of whose parents died in Auschwitz, to refuse food in Cairo, as the group's demonstrations were violently broken up and Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu was feted nearby. Yesterday, demonstrations by Palestinians on the Gazan side of the border against the harassment of the aid convoy led to violent clashes with Egyptian security forces in which an Egyptian soldier was killed and many Palestinians injured.

But although the confrontation has been largely ignored in the west, it has been a major media event in the Middle East which has only damaged Egypt. And while the Egyptian government claims it is simply upholding its national sovereignty, the saga has instead starkly exposed its complicity in the US- and European-backed blockade of Gaza and the collective punishment of its one and a half million people.

The main protagonist of the siege, Israel, controls only three sides of the Strip. Without Egypt, which polices the fourth, it would be ineffective. But, having tolerated the tunnels that have saved Gazans from utter beggary, the Cairo regime is now building a deep underground steel wall (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/10/egypt-underground-wall-gaza) – known as the "wall of shame" to many Egyptians – under close US supervision, to make the blockade complete.

That's partly because the ageing Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, fears cross-border contamination from Gaza's elected Hamas administration, whose ideological allies in the banned Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.ikhwanweb.com/) would be likely to win free elections in Egypt.

But two other factors seem to have been decisive in convincing Cairo to bend to American and Israeli pressure and close the vice on Gaza's Palestinians, along with those who support them. The first was a US threat to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of aid unless it cracked down on arms and other smuggling. The second is the need for US acquiescence in the widely expected hereditary succession of Mubarak's ex-banker son, Gamal, to the presidency. So, far from protecting its sovereignty, the Egyptian government has sold it for continued foreign subsidy and despotic dynastic rule, sacrificing any pretence to its historic role of Arab leadership in the process.

From the wider international perspective, it is precisely this western embrace of repressive and unrepresentative regimes such as Egypt's, along with unwavering backing for Israel's occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land, that is at the heart of the crisis in the Middle East and Muslim world.

Decades of oil-hungry backing for despots, from Iran to Oman, Egypt to Saudi Arabia, along with the failure of Arab nationalism to complete the decolonisation of the region, fuelled first the rise of Islamism and then the eruption of al-Qaida-style terror more than a decade ago. But, far from addressing the natural hostility to foreign control of the area and its resources at the centre of the conflict, the disastrous US-led response was to expand the western presence still further, with new and yet more destructive invasions and occupations, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. And the Bush administration's brief flirtation with democratisation in client states such as Egypt was quickly abandoned once it became clear who was likely to be elected.

The poisonous logic of this imperial quagmire is now leading inexorably to the spread of war under Barack Obama. Following the failed bomb attack of a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day, the US president this week announced two new fronts in the war on terror, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown: Yemen, where the would-be bomber was allegedly trained; and Somalia, where al-Qaida has also put down roots in the swamp of chronic civil war and social disintegration.

Greater western military intervention in both countries will certainly make the problem worse. In Somalia, it has already done so, after the US-backed Ethiopian invasion of 2006 overthrew the relatively pragmatic Islamic Courts Union and spawned the more extreme, al-Qaida-linked Shabab movement, now in control of large parts of the country. Increased US backing for the unpopular Yemeni government, already facing armed rebellion in the north and the threat of secession from the restive south – which only finally succeeded in forcing out British colonial rule in 1967 – is bound to throw petrol on the flames.

The British prime minister tried this week to claim that the growth of al-Qaida in Yemen and Somalia showed western strategy was "working" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8438361.stm), because the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan had forced it to look for sanctuaries elsewhere. In reality, it is a measure of the grotesque failure of the entire war on terror. Since its launch in October 2001, al-Qaida has spread from the mountains of Afghanistan across the region, to Iraq, Pakistan, the horn of Africa, and far beyond.

Instead of scaling down the western support for dictatorship and occupation that fuels al-Qaida-style terror, and concentrating resources on police action to counter it, the US and its allies have been drawn inexorably into repeating and extending the monstrosities that sparked it in the first place. It's the recipe for a war on terror without end.

[Betty Boop]

Seumas Milne (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/07/egypt-gaza-strip-viva-palestina) on the Egyptian treatment of the Viva Palestina aid convoy to Gaza.

If an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor had gone on hunger strike in support of a besieged people in another part of the world, and hundreds of mostly western protesters had been stoned and beaten by police, you can be sure we'd have heard all about it. But because that is what's been happening in western-backed Egypt, rather than Iran, and the people the protesters are supporting are the Palestinians of Gaza instead of, say, Tibetans, most people in Europe and north America know nothing about it.

For the last fortnight, two groups of hundreds of activists have been battling with Egyptian police and officials to cross into the Gaza Strip to show solidarity with the blockaded population on the first anniversary of Israel's devastating onslaught. Last night, George Galloway's Viva Palestina (http://www.vivapalestina.org/home.htm) 500-strong convoy of medical aid was finally allowed in, minus 50 of its 200 vehicles, after being repeatedly blocked, diverted and intimidated by Egyptian security – including a violent assault in the Egyptian port of El Arish on Tuesday night which left dozens injured, despite the participation of one British and 10 Turkish MPs.

That followed an attempted "Gaza freedom march" by 1,400 protesters from more than 40 countries, only 84 of whom were allowed across the border – which is what led Hedy Epstein, both of whose parents died in Auschwitz, to refuse food in Cairo, as the group's demonstrations were violently broken up and Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu was feted nearby. Yesterday, demonstrations by Palestinians on the Gazan side of the border against the harassment of the aid convoy led to violent clashes with Egyptian security forces in which an Egyptian soldier was killed and many Palestinians injured.

But although the confrontation has been largely ignored in the west, it has been a major media event in the Middle East which has only damaged Egypt. And while the Egyptian government claims it is simply upholding its national sovereignty, the saga has instead starkly exposed its complicity in the US- and European-backed blockade of Gaza and the collective punishment of its one and a half million people.

The main protagonist of the siege, Israel, controls only three sides of the Strip. Without Egypt, which polices the fourth, it would be ineffective. But, having tolerated the tunnels that have saved Gazans from utter beggary, the Cairo regime is now building a deep underground steel wall (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/10/egypt-underground-wall-gaza) – known as the "wall of shame" to many Egyptians – under close US supervision, to make the blockade complete.

That's partly because the ageing Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, fears cross-border contamination from Gaza's elected Hamas administration, whose ideological allies in the banned Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.ikhwanweb.com/) would be likely to win free elections in Egypt.

But two other factors seem to have been decisive in convincing Cairo to bend to American and Israeli pressure and close the vice on Gaza's Palestinians, along with those who support them. The first was a US threat to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of aid unless it cracked down on arms and other smuggling. The second is the need for US acquiescence in the widely expected hereditary succession of Mubarak's ex-banker son, Gamal, to the presidency. So, far from protecting its sovereignty, the Egyptian government has sold it for continued foreign subsidy and despotic dynastic rule, sacrificing any pretence to its historic role of Arab leadership in the process.

From the wider international perspective, it is precisely this western embrace of repressive and unrepresentative regimes such as Egypt's, along with unwavering backing for Israel's occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land, that is at the heart of the crisis in the Middle East and Muslim world.

Decades of oil-hungry backing for despots, from Iran to Oman, Egypt to Saudi Arabia, along with the failure of Arab nationalism to complete the decolonisation of the region, fuelled first the rise of Islamism and then the eruption of al-Qaida-style terror more than a decade ago. But, far from addressing the natural hostility to foreign control of the area and its resources at the centre of the conflict, the disastrous US-led response was to expand the western presence still further, with new and yet more destructive invasions and occupations, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. And the Bush administration's brief flirtation with democratisation in client states such as Egypt was quickly abandoned once it became clear who was likely to be elected.

The poisonous logic of this imperial quagmire is now leading inexorably to the spread of war under Barack Obama. Following the failed bomb attack of a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day, the US president this week announced two new fronts in the war on terror, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown: Yemen, where the would-be bomber was allegedly trained; and Somalia, where al-Qaida has also put down roots in the swamp of chronic civil war and social disintegration.

Greater western military intervention in both countries will certainly make the problem worse. In Somalia, it has already done so, after the US-backed Ethiopian invasion of 2006 overthrew the relatively pragmatic Islamic Courts Union and spawned the more extreme, al-Qaida-linked Shabab movement, now in control of large parts of the country. Increased US backing for the unpopular Yemeni government, already facing armed rebellion in the north and the threat of secession from the restive south – which only finally succeeded in forcing out British colonial rule in 1967 – is bound to throw petrol on the flames.

The British prime minister tried this week to claim that the growth of al-Qaida in Yemen and Somalia showed western strategy was "working" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8438361.stm), because the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan had forced it to look for sanctuaries elsewhere. In reality, it is a measure of the grotesque failure of the entire war on terror. Since its launch in October 2001, al-Qaida has spread from the mountains of Afghanistan across the region, to Iraq, Pakistan, the horn of Africa, and far beyond.

Instead of scaling down the western support for dictatorship and occupation that fuels al-Qaida-style terror, and concentrating resources on police action to counter it, the US and its allies have been drawn inexorably into repeating and extending the monstrosities that sparked it in the first place. It's the recipe for a war on terror without end.

I wonder what spin the Israelis will put on the hunger strike by Hedy Epstein? They usually refer to anyone Jewish who shows support for the Palestinians, as self loathing. Well done to GG and all the members of the convoy, on finally making it to Gaza, after a month of travelling and being treated like crap by Egypt. These people are truly an inspiration! :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

GG has been deported from Egypt, for having the audacity to criticise Cairo, after delays to the Aid Convoy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8447847.stm

[LiverpoolHibs]

Breaking news of F-16 airstrikes on Gaza City.

http://www.paltelegraph.com/hot-topic/3551-breaking-news-israeli-f16s-attack-northern-western-southern-and-middle-gaza-now

[McIntosh]

Breaking news of F-16 airstrikes on Gaza City.

http://www.paltelegraph.com/hot-topic/3551-breaking-news-israeli-f16s-attack-northern-western-southern-and-middle-gaza-now

War criminals of the highest order.

[ballengeich]

War criminals of the highest order.

As are the Gaza inhabitants who fire rockets into Israeli towns. There seems to be no end to the sad, circular process.

[McIntosh]

as are the gaza inhabitants who fire rockets into israeli towns. There seems to be no end to the sad, circular process.

No , there is a clear difference between the innocent and the guilty. Israel is breaching international law, until it ceases to exist as a sectarian state there can be no peace.

[LiverpoolHibs]

As are the Gaza inhabitants who fire rockets into Israeli towns. There seems to be no end to the sad, circular process.

Ah yes, never forget to even things up. Even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

[ballengeich]

No , there is a clear difference between the innocent and the guilty. Israel is breaching international law, until it ceases to exist as a sectarian state there can be no peace.

The actions of both sides were condemned by the UN investigation into the Gaza conflict a year ago.

War kills innocent people on both sides. I repeat that it's a sad, circular process.

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------


Ah yes, never forget to even things up. Even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

I believe that violence against innocent people is unjustifiable regardless of their nationality, religion or race.

[(((Fergus)))]

No , there is a clear difference between the innocent and the guilty. Israel is breaching international law, until it ceases to exist as a sectarian state there can be no peace.

How is Israel breaching international law?

[hibsbollah]

How is Israel breaching international law?

UN Resolution 242 from 1967, which has been ignored for 43 years, demanded Israel give back the land they 'won' in the Six Days War.

[(((Fergus)))]

UN Resolution 242 from 1967, which has been ignored for 43 years, demanded Israel give back the land they 'won' in the Six Days War.

Yes, but I thought there was some international law against a country being a "sectarian state" as the poster said above.

[hibsbollah]

Yes, but I thought there was some international law against a country being a "sectarian state" as the poster said above.

You're right, I don't think 'sectarian' is the right word for Israel, it fits a particular context about religious schisms within a single faith, eg-Prods and Papes.

[(((Fergus)))]

Incidentally, what is the Hamas plan for peace in Palestine?

[hibsbollah]

Incidentally, what is the Hamas plan for peace in Palestine?

The Hamas charter says the state of Israel would be subsumed in a greater Lebanon, with Jewish rights to practice their religion protected, although the Hamas leadership have said more recently that if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories that would be enough. (I am taking this from the BBC Newsround site:faf:)

[LiverpoolHibs]

Breaking news of F-16 airstrikes on Gaza City.

http://www.paltelegraph.com/hot-topic/3551-breaking-news-israeli-f16s-attack-northern-western-southern-and-middle-gaza-now

Three killed, including a 14 year old boy, according to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8447410.stm

[(((Fergus)))]

UN Resolution 242 from 1967, which has been ignored for 43 years, demanded Israel give back the land they 'won' in the Six Days War.

One thing I was wondering about 242 is why it took until 1967 to issue this Resolution? Both the West Bank and Gaza had been occupied by foreign forces since 1948/49...

BTW Here's quite a sensible peace plan proposed by Ray Hanania, a would-be Palestinian president: http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000778.htm

[hibsbollah]

One thing I was wondering about 242 is why it took until 1967 to issue this Resolution? Both the West Bank and Gaza had been occupied by foreign forces since 1948/49...

BTW Here's quite a sensible peace plan proposed by Ray Hanania, a would-be Palestinian president: http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000778.htm


I think you're wrong there Fergus, Israel took the West Bank and Gaza in the Six Day War in 1967, which is what UN242 is about. Its also probably what most Palestinians would have an issue about in Hanania's (otherwise sensible) manifesto at point 5. You may as well give the Germans back Sudetenland and Alsace.

[(((Fergus)))]

I think you're wrong there Fergus, Israel took the West Bank and Gaza in the Six Day War in 1967, which is what UN242 is about. Its also probably what most Palestinians would have an issue about in Hanania's (otherwise sensible) manifesto at point 5. You may as well give the Germans back Sudetenland and Alsace.

What I meant was that Egypt took Gaza in 1948 and Jordan took the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948/49. As far as I can make out there were no resolutions demanding their withdrawal. I think they may even have annexed those territories although the annexations may not have been recognised by many states.

Regarding right of return there would as you say be a hell of a lot of people elsewhere in the world lining up for compensation/immigration. What if all the Australian criminals wanted to come back to the UK? :bitchy:

I thought point 5 - along with several other points - was very conciliatory in tone: "Instead, some could apply for family reunification through Israel and the remainder would be compensated through a fund created and maintained by the United States, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations." There is also recognition of the "Jewish Nakba" which saw a similar number of Jewish refugees leave arab territories without compensation for their property and mostly settle in Israel (most after 1967 right enough).

[hibsbollah]

What I meant was that Egypt took Gaza in 1948 and Jordan took the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948/49. As far as I can make out there were no resolutions demanding their withdrawal. I think they may even have annexed those territories although the annexations may not have been recognised by many states.

Regarding right of return there would as you say be a hell of a lot of people elsewhere in the world lining up for compensation/immigration. What if all the Australian criminals wanted to come back to the UK? :bitchy:

I thought point 5 - along with several other points - was very conciliatory in tone: "Instead, some could apply for family reunification through Israel and the remainder would be compensated through a fund created and maintained by the United States, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations." There is also recognition of the "Jewish Nakba" which saw a similar number of Jewish refugees leave arab territories without compensation for their property and mostly settle in Israel (most after 1967 right enough).

I'm not sure that represents UN double standards; you're trying to compare two different events surely?:confused: The old West bank and Gaza were taken by Egypt and Jordan, helped by British shenanigans and skullduggery that followed the end of the Ottoman Empire. I dont know what the UN thought about it, to be honest, although the UN was a brand new organisation in 1948, but whatever its a very different set of circumstances from the 1967 War.

I suspect you're having a jest with the Australian thing, as its obviously a bit of a different set of circumstances:greengrin

[McIntosh]

Sadly, Israel is a sectarian state in terms of its quality and character; its devotion to the interests of Zionism and its excess of partisan religious zeal.

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm not sure that represents UN double standards; you're trying to compare two different events surely?:confused: The old West bank and Gaza were taken by Egypt and Jordan, helped by British shenanigans and skullduggery that followed the end of the Ottoman Empire. I dont know what the UN thought about it, to be honest, although the UN was a brand new organisation in 1948, but whatever its a very different set of circumstances from the 1967 War.

I suspect you're having a jest with the Australian thing, as its obviously a bit of a different set of circumstances:greengrin

As far as I understand it, Israeli independence was declared on the basis of a UN Resolution (181), which also provided for a Palestinian state. After the War of Independence, the areas of "Palestine" as defined by this Resolution were not used to create a Palestinian state but were in fact annexed to Egypt and Jordan. These were therefore territories acquired through warfare (something defined as a no-no in 242). The UN had 20 years in which to issue a Resolution on these illegal annexations but waited until they had changed hands before doing so. Did the WB/Gaza arabs fight a war of liberation against Egypt and Jordan? I don't know.

You'd be right about the Aussies :jamboak: but Germany for one has loads of refugee associations all pining for the Sudetenland, Siebenbuergen, Silesia, Danzig, East Prussia, etc., etc., etc. Way over 10 million ethnic Germans were expelled after WW2 and the associations are still very active today.

[(((Fergus)))]

Sadly, Israel is a sectarian state in terms of its quality and character; its devotion to the interests of Zionism and its excess of partisan religious zeal.

Israel was obviously created as a Jewish state but in the ethnic sense rather than the religious one. Understandable, given that jews are/were generally persecuted on ethnic grounds rather than religious ones. In fact, many sects of Orthodox judaism were and still are skeptical about an Israeli state.

[hibsbollah]

As far as I understand it, Israeli independence was declared on the basis of a UN Resolution (181), which also provided for a Palestinian state. After the War of Independence, the areas of "Palestine" as defined by this Resolution were not used to create a Palestinian state but were in fact annexed to Egypt and Jordan. These were therefore territories acquired through warfare (something defined as a no-no in 242). The UN had 20 years in which to issue a Resolution on these illegal annexations but waited until they had changed hands before doing so. Did the WB/Gaza arabs fight a war of liberation against Egypt and Jordan? I don't know.

You'd be right about the Aussies :jamboak: but Germany for one has loads of refugee associations all pining for the Sudetenland, Siebenbuergen, Silesia, Danzig, East Prussia, etc., etc., etc. Way over 10 million ethnic Germans were expelled after WW2 and the associations are still very active today.

Well I stand corrected on the first part, I thought the West Bank and Gaza were 'awarded' to the Egyptians/Jordanians based on dodgy diplomacy, not as a result of miltary conquest. There had been a fairly established diplomatic understanding since the end of WW1 that land could not be acquired through military conquest, the original 'new world order'.

[khib70]

As far as I understand it, Israeli independence was declared on the basis of a UN Resolution (181), which also provided for a Palestinian state. After the War of Independence, the areas of "Palestine" as defined by this Resolution were not used to create a Palestinian state but were in fact annexed to Egypt and Jordan. These were therefore territories acquired through warfare (something defined as a no-no in 242). The UN had 20 years in which to issue a Resolution on these illegal annexations but waited until they had changed hands before doing so. Did the WB/Gaza arabs fight a war of liberation against Egypt and Jordan? I don't know.
You'd be right about the Aussies :jamboak: but Germany for one has loads of refugee associations all pining for the Sudetenland, Siebenbuergen, Silesia, Danzig, East Prussia, etc., etc., etc. Way over 10 million ethnic Germans were expelled after WW2 and the associations are still very active today.
:agree:An accurate statement of a frequently ignored fact. The Arab States chose not to establish a Palestinian state, but instead to attempt to destroy the Jewish state by force of arms. They failed, and have continued to fail ever since. And when it became obvious that even the combined forces of the frontline states were not going to destroy Israel by force, the UN suddenly developed an interest.

The territories set aside for a Palestinian state in 1948 ( the "West Bank" and Gaza in the main) were used as a base to invade Israel and subsequently annexed by Jordan and Egypt. They were never the sovereign territory of either state in any legal sense of the word. They were occupied by Israel after once again being used as a base for military attacks in 1967.

They should never have been subject to the expansionist settlement policies practiced by Likud over the years. The settlements can be and should be dismantled and the territory returned to those it was intended for - the Palestinians, not the frontline states, in exchange for internationally agreed and monitored security guarantees for both states.

Until that time, Israel has the right to defend itself against attacks on its population, as it did this weekend after rocket and mortar attacks on Ashkelon and the Western Negev, and attempted infiltration by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

The full text of UN Resolution 181 can be seen here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

[LiverpoolHibs]

As far as I understand it, Israeli independence was declared on the basis of a UN Resolution (181), which also provided for a Palestinian state. After the War of Independence, the areas of "Palestine" as defined by this Resolution were not used to create a Palestinian state but were in fact annexed to Egypt and Jordan. These were therefore territories acquired through warfare (something defined as a no-no in 242). The UN had 20 years in which to issue a Resolution on these illegal annexations but waited until they had changed hands before doing so. Did the WB/Gaza arabs fight a war of liberation against Egypt and Jordan? I don't know.

It would have been largely impossible. The Jordanian occupation, in particular, was absolutely brutal and the Palestinian population corralled into refugee camps and demoralised by the extent of the Israeli victory. Any expression of Palestinian nationalism was immediately crushed.

I imagine there was also some realpolitikal recognition that Egypt and Jordan would act as a 'better' bulwark against Israeli expansionism than a fragmented, disorganised and ethnically cleansed (well over half of the Arab Palestinian population were expelled or fled and thousands were slaughtered) populace.


:agree:An accurate statement of a frequently ignored fact. The Arab States chose not to establish a Palestinian state, but instead to attempt to destroy the Jewish state by force of arms. They failed, and have continued to fail ever since. And when it became obvious that even the combined forces of the frontline states were not going to destroy Israel by force, the UN suddenly developed an interest.

So despite recommending the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine in late '47 and admitting Israel to the U.N. in 1949 after the War of Independence (with the pre-resolution statement that Israel is 'a peace loving State'), they actually wanted the combined Arab states to destroy Israel all along?


The territories set aside for a Palestinian state in 1948 ( the "West Bank" and Gaza in the main) were used as a base to invade Israel and subsequently annexed by Jordan and Egypt. They were never the sovereign territory of either state in any legal sense of the word. They were occupied by Israel after once again being used as a base for military attacks in 1967.

Hang on, that's nonsense. Firstly, as you're well aware, Israel attacked first in '67. Secondly, Israel went through Gaza to get to Egypt - not vice versa; Egypt had all its forces massed in the south of the Sinai peninsula. Thirdly, the West bank was under Jordanian occupation but - and correct me if I'm wrong - they didn't set foot outside of it, Israel invaded after the Jordanian army entered the demilitarised zone in Jerusalem; they never entered Israel proper.


They should never have been subject to the expansionist settlement policies practiced by Likud over the years. The settlements can be and should be dismantled and the territory returned to those it was intended for - the Palestinians, not the frontline states, in exchange for internationally agreed and monitored security guarantees for both states.

Weren't you talking the other day about people fundamentally misunderstanding Zionism?


Until that time, Israel has the right to defend itself against attacks on its population, as it did this weekend after rocket and mortar attacks on Ashkelon and the Western Negev, and attempted infiltration by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Have you got a link for that? I'm not necessarily doubting you, just a Fatah linked group operating in Gaza (since '07) seems a bit odd.

[Betty Boop]

Have you got a link for that? I'm not necessarily doubting you, just a Fatah linked group operating in Gaza (since '07) seems a bit odd.

I'm sure the report I read, said that the militants were from the al-Quds brigades. I might be wrong though.

[(((Fergus)))]

It would have been largely impossible. The Jordanian occupation, in particular, was absolutely brutal and the Palestinian population corralled into refugee camps and demoralised by the extent of the Israeli victory. Any expression of Palestinian nationalism was immediately crushed.


Surely more reason for the UN to intervene and support the creation of a Palestinian state?

[hibsbollah]

Surely more reason for the UN to intervene and support the creation of a Palestinian state?

You may well be right, but as mentioned the UN had only just been formed the previous year and may not have had the means to 'intervene' then. Even if they did have the means, I'm still not seeing any direct comparison with 1967 though, Deir Yasin massacre, half a million Palestinian refugees fleeing Israelis, etc etc.

I'm sensing you think the UN employed double standards in criticising Israel over the years. Maybe aye maybe naw but its largely irrelevant since US vetoes mean the Security Council havent lifted a finger to enforce all these resolutions against Israel anyway.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm sure the report I read, said that the militants were from the al-Quds brigades. I might be wrong though.

That would make more sense.


Surely more reason for the UN to intervene and support the creation of a Palestinian state?

As hibsbollah says I thinks it's probably the fact that the U.N. was a very new entity coupled with certain nations withdrawing their U.N. troops in the region and Nasser's expulsion of those who remained. I won't pretend to know exactly why an intervention didn't come (I also don't think it's hugely important to understanding the conflict as a whole, but I'll try to find out anyway because it's quite interesting) - maybe the above facts led to a position where they (the UN) didn't want to stretch themselves too early in case it fell before it really got going?

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Palestinians were marginalised to a ridiculous extent by all those involved - they wouldn't have had any power to force the hand of the U.N. I also imagine Israel would have been happy with the Jordanian annexation and Egyptian occupation, knowing that they were completely untenable and hoping they could fill the vacuum when they finally fell.

And any attempt to equate the Egyptian occupation (or even the Jordanian annexation) with the Israeli occupation would just be silly.

[(((Fergus)))]

You may well be right, but as mentioned the UN had only just been formed the previous year and may not have had the means to 'intervene' then. Even if they did have the means, I'm still not seeing any direct comparison with 1967 though, Deir Yasin massacre, half a million Palestinian refugees fleeing Israelis, etc etc.


The UN could have intervened in WB/Gaza at any time up to May 1967. They didn't. I'm curious as to why not. It's also strange how the Arab Legion, supposedly there to help their brother Arabs ended up subjugating them within what was legally their own land. If a bulwark was required against an "expansionist Israel" - which I don't think Israel in general was, they were happy just to have a state IMO - the Palestinian government could simply have allowed Jordanian troops to be stationed on its territory.

Not sure what you mean by the bit in bold. If you are referring to all the sufferings endured by the Arabs at the hands of the Jews and not just 1967 then I would say that the whole history has been a case of an eye for an eye, e.g., Deir Yassin 1948/Hebron massacre 1929. The flight/expulsion of Arabs from Israel is mirrored by the flight/expulsion of a similar number of Jews from Arab countries from 1948 onwards. Even so, there are over 1 million Arabs living in Israel today (most of whom, while suffering inequalities, would still prefer to live under Israeli rather than PA rule) while the number of Jews living in all the Arab countries is about 8,500 individuals. Some Arab countries now have no jews at all.

The whole process over the past 150 years - on both sides - has been one of polarisation and I think we should just accept that.



I'm sensing you think the UN employed double standards in criticising Israel over the years. Maybe aye maybe naw but its largely irrelevant since US vetoes mean the Security Council havent lifted a finger to enforce all these resolutions against Israel anyway.

I'm not so bothered about them overly criticising Israel - I think they do, and rightly so - I'm just shocked that they - along with the Jordanians and possibly Egyptians - didn't seem to give a toss about the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs.

[(((Fergus)))]

And any attempt to equate the Egyptian occupation (or even the Jordanian annexation) with the Israeli occupation would just be silly.

You can't just say things like that. You have to explain your position otherwise we're still in the dark.

[hibsbollah]

The whole process over the past 150 years - on both sides - has been one of polarisation and I think we should just accept that.


Theres no doubt about that.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You can't just say things like that. You have to explain your position otherwise we're still in the dark.

Because, despite what you said above, the Egyptian occupation of Gaza and the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (though obviously unpleasant and undesirable - especially Jordanian brutality in response to expressions of Palestinian (exclusively Palestinian as opposed to general Arab nationalism)) is in no way comparable to the Israeli occupation in terms of the subjugation of the Palestinian populace. In both cases Palestinians were subject to the same laws and given the same rights as the citizens of Jordan and Egypt - in fact they were given full citizenship. To compare it to the Israeli occupation - as so many Zionists and apologists do (I'm not accusing you of being either by the way) - is just bromidic and illogical.

[(((Fergus)))]

Because, despite what you said above, the Egyptian occupation of Gaza and the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (though obviously unpleasant and undesirable - especially Jordanian brutality in response to expressions of Palestinian (exclusively Palestinian as opposed to general Arab nationalism)) is in no way comparable to the Israeli occupation in terms of the subjugation of the Palestinian populace. In both cases Palestinians were subject to the same laws and given the same rights as the citizens of Jordan and Egypt - in fact they were given full citizenship. To compare it to the Israeli occupation - as so many Zionists and apologists do (I'm not accusing you of being either by the way) - is just bromidic and illogical.

Well obviously Jordan gave the West Bank Arabs equal citizenship rights because they intended to annex that territory. Doing so doubled the agricultural land of Jordan. Any sign of Palestinian nationalism was crushed for the same reason. In other words, the population was subjugated to the extent required in order for the Jordanian state to get its way.

You could argue that if Israel had not "liberated" :wink: the West Bank in 1967 there would be even less likelihood of a Palestinian state today as the Palestinians would have been increasingly assimilated into Jordan/Egypt.

As for Israel not providing full citizenship rights, do you think Israel should have just annexed the West Bank and then simply dealt with subsequent civil unrest through the criminal courts?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well obviously Jordan gave the West Bank Arabs equal citizenship rights because they intended to annex that territory. Doing so doubled the agricultural land of Jordan. Any sign of Palestinian nationalism was crushed for the same reason. In other words, the population was subjugated to the extent required in order for the Jordanian state to get its way.

Absolutely, I didn't doubt any of that - I was just explaining why equating Gaza/West Bank under Egypt/Jordan to Gaza/W.B. under Israel is ludicrous.


You could argue that if Israel had not "liberated" :wink: the West Bank in 1967 there would be even less likelihood of a Palestinian state today as the Palestinians would have been increasingly assimilated into Jordan/Egypt.

Possibly. I suppose it depends if Arab nationalism/pan-Arabism/Nasserism would have 'failed' even without defeat in the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars.

And there were occasional upsurges (arguably growing and growing) in Palestinian nationalism prior to '67 directed at Jordan and Egypt.

Anyway, alternative histories are really dull...


As for Israel not providing full citizenship rights, do you think Israel should have just annexed the West Bank and then simply dealt with subsequent civil unrest through the criminal courts?

Sorry? Why would I think that?

[(((Fergus)))]

You mentioned that Israel did not provide full citizenship rights to WB Arabs as if that were a negative thing. In order to provide full citizenship rights, Israel would have had to annex the WB to become a full part of Israel. I don't think the majority of Israelis would want that combination and I doubt the West Bank Arabs would either - although if you consider the feedback from Arabs living in Israel, it could be a close run thing.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You mentioned that Israel did not provide full citizenship rights to WB Arabs as if that were a negative thing. In order to provide full citizenship rights, Israel would have had to annex the WB to become a full part of Israel. I don't think the majority of Israelis would want that combination and I doubt the West Bank Arabs would either - although if you consider the feedback from Arabs living in Israel, it could be a close run thing.

This is getting a bit odd. I didn’t say anything about citizenship rights in the P.O.T.s under Israel, I just pointed out that they existed for Gazan and West Bank Palestinians when the Jordanians/Egyptians controlled them - as one argument as to why comparing the two situations is pretty foolish. That doesn't mean I believe it would have been desirable for Israel to annexe the territories just so as to grant full rights to Palestinians or that this would have been feasible in any way. That's just bizarre logic.

Of course Israel would never fully annexe the Gaza Strip or the West Bank (importantly, with their demographics as they were/are) as that would potentially explode the Israeli state; see Ehud Olmert's argument for withdrawal from the O.T.s on the grounds that Israel must at all times maintain a solid 80% Jewish majority and Ben Gurion's remark that partition was a necessary evil whilst Arabs outnumbered Jews in historic Palestine. And of course the Palestinians wouldn’t accept subsumation into a Greater Israel.

Your constant references to Israeli Arabs are also a bit strange. Is it, in any way, surprising that they’d rather live in Israel than in the Occupied Territories? Of course it isn’t - in spite of the awful racism they encounter, but that doesn’t equate to them preferring living in Israel to the idea of living in a proper Palestinian state (or reaching a single state settlement). Otherwise why the overwhelming support within the Israeli Arab community for the United Arab List/Ta’al, Hadash/Maki or Balad in elections to the Knesset? Although I am slightly curious as to what ‘feedback’ you have that suggests Israeli Arabs support the creation of a Greater Israel?

[(((Fergus)))]

The point of comparing the two states of occupation was to contrast the response of a) the UN and b) the West Bank/Gaza Arabs themselves. Neither made any significant protest as far as I can see.

I agree that Israel would never annexe those territories, however if they were the bad boys they are often portrayed to be, they could always engineer a full expulsion, either directly or indirectly.

The point about Israeli Arabs is from a survey conducted annually by Sami Samuha of Haifa University. The relevant statements were:



62% of Arab citizens of Israel worry that Israel could transfer their communities to the jurisdiction of a future Palestinian state (note: not the O.T.)
67.5% of Arab citizens of Israel said they would be content to live in the Jewish state, if it existed alongside a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip


This despite the fact that



76% of Arab citizens of Israel described Zionism as racist

The most moderate (pro-Israel) year for Arab opinion was 1995, apparently, however the second Lebanon War has seen a lot of that good will evaporate to the point where 40% now deny the mass murder of Jews in Nazi Europe.

[hibsbollah]

if they were the bad boys they are often portrayed to be, they could always engineer a full expulsion, either directly or indirectly.

So what is your explanation for this? Is not 'engineering a full expulsion' a sign of the Israeli's goodwill?

[(((Fergus)))]

So what is your explanation for this? Is not 'engineering a full expulsion' a sign of the Israeli's goodwill?

Must be a whole spectrum of reasons for that, not all of them pure.

[khib70]

It would have been largely impossible. The Jordanian occupation, in particular, was absolutely brutal and the Palestinian population corralled into refugee camps and demoralised by the extent of the Israeli victory. Any expression of Palestinian nationalism was immediately crushed.

I imagine there was also some realpolitikal recognition that Egypt and Jordan would act as a 'better' bulwark against Israeli expansionism than a fragmented, disorganised and ethnically cleansed (well over half of the Arab Palestinian population were expelled or fled and thousands were slaughtered) populace.



So despite recommending the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine in late '47 and admitting Israel to the U.N. in 1949 after the War of Independence (with the pre-resolution statement that Israel is 'a peace loving State'), they actually wanted the combined Arab states to destroy Israel all along?



Hang on, that's nonsense. Firstly, as you're well aware, Israel attacked first in '67. Secondly, Israel went through Gaza to get to Egypt - not vice versa; Egypt had all its forces massed in the south of the Sinai peninsula. Thirdly, the West bank was under Jordanian occupation but - and correct me if I'm wrong - they didn't set foot outside of it, Israel invaded after the Jordanian army entered the demilitarised zone in Jerusalem; they never entered Israel proper.



Weren't you talking the other day about people fundamentally misunderstanding Zionism?



Have you got a link for that? I'm not necessarily doubting you, just a Fatah linked group operating in Gaza (since '07) seems a bit odd.
Ref the Al Aqsa thing - I'm confusing two incidents on the same day. The Al Aqsa one took place in Nablus, as would be logical. The air strike on an attempted incursion by Hamas personnel took place earlier the same day.

As for the Six Day War, while it's correct to say that Israel struck first, it's a little disingenuous. Israel carried out pre-emptive strikes when faced with vastly numerically superior Arab forces massing on her borders. There was a clear intention on the part of Egypt, Syria and Jordan to invade. Gaza was occupied in order to prevent Egyptian forces moving North from having a handy back door into the Western Negev and beyond. The huge build up of Jordanian forces in the West Bank area was a clear and present danger to Israel at its narrowest point. Jordanian armour crossing the border in strength could have cut Israel in half in no time at all.

There was at least one incident involving Israeli vehicles being mined on Israeli territory prior to this, IIRC.

As to understanding of Zionism. I would expect you to be aware that Zionism encompasses a wide range of ideas regarding the proper status and size of Israel. My understanding of Zionism is very different from that of Begin, or Shamir, or indeed Benjamin Netanyahu. Along with a sizeable number of Israelis, I don't believe that the right of existence of a Jewish state and the creation of a "Greater Israel" are the same thing at all. Like many Israelis, I support an autonomous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and deplore expansionism, and the activities of the settler zealots, most of whom are not long off the plane from the USA.

I believe in a secure Israel within the borders specified in 1948, and I firmly believe in her right to defend that territory against incursions and rocket attacks. I don't have any time for the use of security concerns to justify stealing land from neighbours.

[hibsbollah]

Must be a whole spectrum of reasons for that, not all of them pure.

:faf: I see you've taken your understatement pill this morning
:wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

The point of comparing the two states of occupation was to contrast the response of a) the UN and b) the West Bank/Gaza Arabs themselves. Neither made any significant protest as far as I can see.

And I think I've explained, to the best of my knowledge, how and why this was the case.

Although I think I've probably missed the main point, except touching on it in relation to something else, that secular pan-Arabism was at its zenith as an ideology during the period of the Egyptian occupation and Jordanian annexation.


I agree that Israel would never annexe those territories, however if they were the bad boys they are often portrayed to be, they could always engineer a full expulsion, either directly or indirectly.

As hibsbollah says, the implication here is that them not doing that means they aren't 'bad boys'. Nice to see Israel is judged by truly rigorous moral standards.

Over half of the Palestinian population was expelled, fled or were slaughtered in the '48 war as a result of the ethnic cleansing of the Dalet Plan. I'm sure that's quite 'bad' enough for most people.


The point about Israeli Arabs is from a survey conducted annually by Sami Samuha of Haifa University. The relevant statements were:


62% of Arab citizens of Israel worry that Israel could transfer their communities to the jurisdiction of a future Palestinian state (note: not the O.T.)
67.5% of Arab citizens of Israel said they would be content to live in the Jewish state, if it existed alongside a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

This despite the fact that


76% of Arab citizens of Israel described Zionism as racist

The most moderate (pro-Israel) year for Arab opinion was 1995, apparently, however the second Lebanon War has seen a lot of that good will evaporate to the point where 40% now deny the mass murder of Jews in Nazi Europe.

Interesting, have you got a link for this or is it from a hard copy?

[(((Fergus)))]

Over half of the Palestinian population was expelled, fled or were slaughtered in the '48 war as a result of the ethnic cleansing of the Dalet Plan. I'm sure that's quite 'bad' enough for most people.


That is what happens in war, people do crazy things in the heat of battle. However, since a significant proportion of the Palestinian population remained in Israel - and do so to this day (enjoying freedoms that arabs in some arab countries do not enjoy, never mind the few remaining jews in arab countries) - I tend towards the view that the Dalet Plan was not rigorously implemented and was not the sole reason for the Palestinian Arabs fleeing Israel.

Regarding the violence, who started it? The jews didn't send in an expeditionary force like the British in Australia, America, etc., they paid top dollar for small pieces of land. A Jewish military force was only organised in response to Arab attacks.

I'm not saying the Israelis are whiter than white, I think there are selfish, egotistical individuals on both sides. What I do think, though, is that the Palestinians do have their own destiny in their hands, if they rein in the extremists, accept a compromise they can begin to build their own state. I don't hold out a lot of hope for this, however, since the leadership has never been able to compromise at any point in history, even Map C of the Peel Commission was rejected.



Interesting, have you got a link for this or is it from a hard copy?

I found the information via Wikipedia which only referenced an article in Haaretz, however it should be available from Haifa University.

[(((Fergus)))]

:faf: I see you've taken your understatement pill this morning
:wink:

:greengrin Of course, Israel doesn't want to bring the whole world down on its head plus it also benefits from access to cheap and flexible labour, nevertheless, there is a consciousness within Israel that the deaths of civilians, accidental or otherwise, degrades their own "moral security".

[hibsbollah]

:greengrin Of course, Israel doesn't want to bring the whole world down on its head plus it also benefits from access to cheap and flexible labour, nevertheless, there is a consciousness within Israel that the deaths of civilians, accidental or otherwise, degrades their own "moral security".

:agree:I'm sure there is a consciousness within most human beings that civilian deaths are 'degrading'. But the Israeli state (and yes, Hamas too, as an elected govt they are subject to the same moral code as any other administration) doesnt seem to have this consciousness. Gaza 2008 as the most obvious evidence.

[(((Fergus)))]

:agree:I'm sure there is a consciousness within most human beings that civilian deaths are 'degrading'. But the Israeli state (and yes, Hamas too, as an elected govt they are subject to the same moral code as any other administration) doesnt seem to have this consciousness. Gaza 2008 as the most obvious evidence.

I think the difference between Israel govt and Hamas is that Israel attempts to hit military targets but is not 100% scrupulous about hitting civilian ones in the process. Hamas on the other hand aims for civilian targets while avoiding military ones. This is common of course where military capabilities are as asymmetrical as they are in this case. Nonetheless, if Hamas was concerned about their own civil population they would not launch attacks under civilian cover. They are weak militarily so this is their only means of waging war: a) they are protected by Israel's restraint, such as it is, and b) if civilians do get killed it is a propaganda coup for them. Win win situation, they might think. The other alternative is to compromise, make peace with Israel as a de facto state and allow their young people to build a future.

What other solutions are there?

[hibsbollah]

I think the difference between Israel govt and Hamas is that Israel attempts to hit military targets but is not 100% scrupulous about hitting civilian ones in the process. Hamas on the other hand aims for civilian targets while avoiding military ones. This is common of course where military capabilities are as asymmetrical as they are in this case. Nonetheless, if Hamas was concerned about their own civil population they would not launch attacks under civilian cover. They are weak militarily so this is their only means of waging war: a) they are protected by Israel's restraint, such as it is, and b) if civilians do get killed it is a propaganda coup for them. Win win situation, they might think. The other alternative is to compromise, make peace with Israel as a de facto state and allow their young people to build a future.

What other solutions are there?

Thats a completely false distinction you're trying to draw. 'The other side are using civilians as human shields' has been a standard excuse of armies who have just bombed lots of innocent civilians from WW2 onwards. Its usually a device to deflect attention from mass murder.

In this case, Hamas are fighting in the one of most densely populated areas of the world. The Israelis knew this and knew the 'human shield' argument would be taken seriously by some of the worlds media. Thankfully amnesty and aid groups were there and saw what really happened.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18294
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8128210.stm


specifically from the bbc report;
The Amnesty report says no evidence was found that Palestinian militants had forced civilians to stay in buildings being used for military purposes, contradicting Israeli claims that Hamas repeatedly used "human shields".

[(((Fergus)))]

In a war situation you are always going to have war crimes. Troops/militants who are wound up, seeking revenge, will always commit excesses in addition to the inevitable mistakes that come in battle. Who chose this battlefield though and why? What alternative did they have?

[steakbake]

human shield v collateral damage

[hibsbollah]

In a war situation you are always going to have war crimes. Troops/militants who are wound up, seeking revenge, will always commit excesses in addition to the inevitable mistakes that come in battle. Who chose this battlefield though and why? What alternative did they have?

We're not talking about individual troops being 'wound up', we're talking about a military strategy of dropping phosphorus shells on towns:confused:

[(((Fergus)))]

We're not talking about individual troops being 'wound up', we're talking about a military strategy of dropping phosphorus shells on towns:confused:

As far as I understand it, the use of white phosphorous while controversial is legal provided certain conditions are met. Apparently if you are dealing with snipers in a built up area, white phosphorous is the best type of smokescreen to use. The laws of warfare seem strange to me but there you have it.

BTW I personally don't think that violence should be answered with violence when you are in a position of strength. I also believe that Israel has consistently undermined its own position by reacting to provocation, especially when it is seen to take two eyes for one. I also understand the point though that Israeli public opinion will eventually demand retaliation.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, evicting Jewish settlers and resettling Bedouins who may have been targeted as collaborators. The Palestinian leaders could have used the intervening years to begin building a state and building trust with Israel, establishing respect in the wider world but they did not, they had a civil war. The Hamas charter cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and advocates the killing of all Jews. How on earth you negotiate with that, I don't know. I can understand why Israel just wants to build a wall and forget about them.

[hibsbollah]

As far as I understand it, the use of white phosphorous while controversial is legal provided certain conditions are met. Apparently if you are dealing with snipers in a built up area, white phosphorous is the best type of smokescreen to use. The laws of warfare seem strange to me but there you have it.


You're wrong there. Its only conceivable use in built-up areas is to cause maximum casualties across a wide area. Its use is only permitted if 'all feasible precautions are taken to avoid loss of life'. In addition, the IDF used air burst white phosphorus in order to increase the blast area, not ground burst which is normally used as a smokescreen (or 'obscurant' as the military terminology goes) for military purposes.

[(((Fergus)))]

You're wrong there. Its only conceivable use in built-up areas is to cause maximum casualties across a wide area. Its use is only permitted if 'all feasible precautions are taken to avoid loss of life'. In addition, the IDF used air burst white phosphorus in order to increase the blast area, not ground burst which is normally used as a smokescreen (or 'obscurant' as the military terminology goes) for military purposes.

Apparently there is no other material that is as good at providing a rapid smokescreen. That must be useful in urban warfare? No doubt it is used for its lethal effects too. Nevertheless, I don't see how a civilian being killed with WP is morally any different from him or her bleeding to death from a gunshot wound or dying in a conventional fire. The difference is legal but then that particular law is manmade and subject to change.

[Betty Boop]

That is what happens in war, people do crazy things in the heat of battle. However, since a significant proportion of the Palestinian population remained in Israel - and do so to this day (enjoying freedoms that arabs in some arab countries do not enjoy, never mind the few remaining jews in arab countries) - I tend towards the view that the Dalet Plan was not rigorously implemented and was not the sole reason for the Palestinian Arabs fleeing Israel.

Regarding the violence, who started it? The jews didn't send in an expeditionary force like the British in Australia, America, etc., they paid top dollar for small pieces of land. A Jewish military force was only organised in response to Arab attacks.

I'm not saying the Israelis are whiter than white, I think there are selfish, egotistical individuals on both sides. What I do think, though, is that the Palestinians do have their own destiny in their hands, if they rein in the extremists, accept a compromise they can begin to build their own state. I don't hold out a lot of hope for this, however, since the leadership has never been able to compromise at any point in history, even Map C of the Peel Commission was rejected.



I found the information via Wikipedia which only referenced an article in Haaretz, however it should be available from Haifa University.

Was this information not in an article you posted ages ago, by Daniel Pipes?

[(((Fergus)))]

[/B]

Was this information not in an article you posted ages ago, by Daniel Pipes?


Not sure if that was from the same source (Haifa University)

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think the difference between Israel govt and Hamas is that Israel attempts to hit military targets but is not 100% scrupulous about hitting civilian ones in the process.

That isn't true, in fact it's dangerous and unpleasant to suggest it. Israel routinely targets civilians and civilian infrastructure as part of a military and political strategy to terrorise the residents of the West Bank and, especially, Gaza.

As the Goldstone Report says, Operation Cast Lead was a "...deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever incresing sense of dependency and vulnerability."


Hamas on the other hand aims for civilian targets while avoiding military ones. This is common of course where military capabilities are as asymmetrical as they are in this case. Nonetheless, if Hamas was concerned about their own civil population they would not launch attacks under civilian cover. They are weak militarily so this is their only means of waging war: a) they are protected by Israel's restraint, such as it is, and b) if civilians do get killed it is a propaganda coup for them. Win win situation, they might think. The other alternative is to compromise, make peace with Israel as a de facto state and allow their young people to build a future.

Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.
Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.

This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war.

And, as a genuine question, why are people so quick to defend Israel's 'right' to 'defend its population' against some barely functioning rockets yet the idea of the democratically elected government of Palestine resisting occupation, siege, dispossesion and oppression on behalf of its population is too disgusting to consider?

Could it be, shock horror, that people privilege the lives of Israelis over those of Palestinians?

[LiverpoolHibs]

As to understanding of Zionism. I would expect you to be aware that Zionism encompasses a wide range of ideas regarding the proper status and size of Israel. My understanding of Zionism is very different from that of Begin, or Shamir, or indeed Benjamin Netanyahu. Along with a sizeable number of Israelis, I don't believe that the right of existence of a Jewish state and the creation of a "Greater Israel" are the same thing at all. Like many Israelis, I support an autonomous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and deplore expansionism, and the activities of the settler zealots, most of whom are not long off the plane from the USA.

I think you underestimate how central expansionism is to Zionism. See this (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49921) recent revelation that the Greek Orthodox Church is selling off land in Occupied East Jerusalem to the Israeli State.

It's essentially a particular articulation of European colonialist ideology and shares the expansionism that was central to that (it's because of this that high ranking members of the WZO sympathetic to and even occasional allies of the worst European expression of that - fascism). Once you found a state on völkisch grounds you open yourself up to the most extreme proponents of it; a Netanyahu, a Begin, a Shamir or the people associated with the increasingly popular Yisrael Beiteinu and National Union.

Although you could of course pragmatically support Israel's continued existence in its current form, but I'm not sure that would make you a Zionist.


I believe in a secure Israel within the borders specified in 1948, and I firmly believe in her right to defend that territory against incursions and rocket attacks. I don't have any time for the use of security concerns to justify stealing land from neighbours.

And I believe in the right of any people to resist occupation and oppression.

[khib70]

That isn't true, in fact it's dangerous and unpleasant to suggest it. Israel routinely targets civilians and civilian infrastructure as part of a military and political strategy to terrorise the residents of the West Bank and, especially, Gaza.

As the Goldstone Report says, Operation Cast Lead was a "...deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever incresing sense of dependency and vulnerability."



Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.
Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.

This is the description that would now appear in the history books – if the Germans had won the war.

And, as a genuine question, why are people so quick to defend Israel's 'right' to 'defend its population' against some barely functioning rockets yet the idea of the democratically elected government of Palestine resisting occupation, siege, dispossesion and oppression on behalf of its population is too disgusting to consider?

Could it be, shock horror, that people privilege the lives of Israelis over those of Palestinians?
Oh dear. And you were the guy banging on about false analogy somewhere else. Putting aside the tasteless equation of the IDF with the Nazi Wermacht, this is a comparison of breathtaking silliness.

Did the Wermacht allow thousands of truckloads of food and medical aid into Leningrad? Did they, or the Luftwaffe in London, send clear warnings by all available media channels to the civil population to stay clear of combat areas?
Did Churchill or Stalin deliberately emplace their AA defences, ammunition stores and military headquarters in hospitals and churches?

Your point about Hamas and its "barely functioning" rockets is absurd. Is the indiscriminate launching of ordnance into populated areas justifiable if said ordnance doesn't happen to be very good? Would it become unjustified if Hamas secured better weapons? You rightly questioned the idea that Israel's not fully expelling the Arab population was an indication of benevolence. Can't you see that your justification of indiscriminate rocket attacks on the grounds that the perpetrators aren't very good at it, is equally absurd?

Your analysis of Zionism is the standard Arabist, leftist model. I see Zionism as a national liberation movement based on the right of the Jewish people to a secure national homeland. Equating it with "European Colonialism" is just lazy thinking. The right of return in which Zionists believe applies to Jews of all origins. The "nudge nudge" associations with Fascism of which "anti-Zionists" are so fond are based on scant evidence. Lots of people have flirted with Fascism - and not just the Daily Mail. You are I assume familiar with the Mufti of Jerusalem? If not, that's him on the left:-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/books/review/Segev-t.html
And copies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" can be had easily in any Arab country, usually in schoolbook stores.

[(((Fergus)))]

That isn't true, in fact it's dangerous and unpleasant to suggest it. Israel routinely targets civilians and civilian infrastructure as part of a military and political strategy to terrorise the residents of the West Bank and, especially, Gaza.

As the Goldstone Report says, Operation Cast Lead was a "...deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever incresing sense of dependency and vulnerability."

I do not believe Israel deliberately sets out to kill civilians. Yes, they damage civilian infrastructure in order to frighten the population out of supporting attacks on Israel and if civilians die, "well Hamas started the war". To some extent this works short-term however long-term I think it will only breed resentment and therefore new wars. What do you suggest the Israeli government do about the rocket, mortar and suicide attacks?



Nearly seventy ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called “the Red Army” held the millions of the town’s inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.
Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.


I think that's a wonderful feat of intellectual gymnastics. :thumbsup: A more analogous situation IMO would be where the USA granted autonomy to Native American reservations and a few years later - after a civil war* - started to receive rocket, mortar and suicide bomb attacks on its territory.

* The fact that Fatah and Hamas conducted a civil war upon Israeli withdrawal speaks volumes about the importance of a Palestinian nation at ruling level. It seems they are more interested in personal agrandisement than developing a nation. Same thing happened in the 1880s-1940s. The landowning Palestinians were more than happy to take the Jewish dollar and didn't care about Palestinian nationhood.


And, as a genuine question, why are people so quick to defend Israel's 'right' to 'defend its population' against some barely functioning rockets yet the idea of the democratically elected government of Palestine resisting occupation, siege, dispossesion and oppression on behalf of its population is too disgusting to consider?

Could it be, shock horror, that people privilege the lives of Israelis over those of Palestinians?

They aren't, though, are they? Only a couple of people on this thread are showing any support for Israel. Our media is generally anti-Israel. Even that BBC guy going to Bethlehem on his donkey for Christmas was sticking the boot in. :faf:

I ask again, what should Israel do in the face of terrorist/freedom fighter attacks?

[hibsbollah]

I ask again, what should Israel do in the face of terrorist/freedom fighter attacks?

Its a very loaded question. You could ask the same about any side in any armed conflict anywhere in the world. As you said yourself 'bad things happen in war'. Trying to equate the occasional firing of a Qassam rocket (in 7 years of their use, 11 Israelis have died) with the total devastation wreaked on the Occupied territories over the years and in Gaza in 2008 in particular (1400 dead, half women and children, the UN reporting use of indiscriminate use of artillery shells and white phosphorus in built up areas and precision weapons from F16s used against civilian targets), is complete 'intellectual gymnastics' as you say.

I dont think the hypothetical Native American reservation analogy is any better than the one LH uses (although he was trying to make a point about hyperbole as opposed to drawing direct comparisons between the two cases as I interpret it). The most useful modern analogy to Israels occupation is apartheid South Africa. To (sort of) answer Fergus' loaded question, I would say that Israel should do what De Klerk eventually did, dismantle the tools of their military state and stop oppressing the majority population.

[khib70]

Its a very loaded question. You could ask the same about any side in any armed conflict anywhere in the world. As you said yourself 'bad things happen in war'. Trying to equate the occasional firing of a Qassam rocket
"Occasional"?

"Palestinian armed groups fired about 2,700 Qassam-type rockets from September 2005 through May 2007"

Source, Human Rights Watch report, 30/6/2007

[(((Fergus)))]

If you were the Israeli government, what would you do?

[hibsbollah]

"Occasional"?

"Palestinian armed groups fired about 2,700 Qassam-type rockets from September 2005 through May 2007"

Source, Human Rights Watch report, 30/6/2007

Each one of them represents an 'occasion' does it not? So, they are 'occasional':cool2:. Between 2001-2008 11 Israelis have died as a result of these rockets. Not nice, certainly. On a par with Israeli actions in 2008? Hardly.

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------


If you were the Israeli government, what would you do?

See my last sentence, beardy:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Oh dear. And you were the guy banging on about false analogy somewhere else. Putting aside the tasteless equation of the IDF with the Nazi Wermacht, this is a comparison of breathtaking silliness.

It's not an equation of the IDF with the Wehrmacht though, is it. That's just intentionally missing the point.


Did the Wermacht allow thousands of truckloads of food and medical aid into Leningrad? Did they, or the Luftwaffe in London, send clear warnings by all available media channels to the civil population to stay clear of combat areas?
Did Churchill or Stalin deliberately emplace their AA defences, ammunition stores and military headquarters in hospitals and churches?

Deary me, do you know the geography of Gaza? The Israelis do...

More Goldstone Report:

The Mission found no evidence, however, to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks.

The Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities and that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes. On the basis of its own investigations and the statements by UN officials, the Mission excludes that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat activities from UN facilities that were used as shelters during the military operations.

Incidentally (as the italics and bold were inteded to indicate), that wasn't written by me - it's Uri Avnery's.


Your point about Hamas and its "barely functioning" rockets is absurd. Is the indiscriminate launching of ordnance into populated areas justifiable if said ordnance doesn't happen to be very good? Would it become unjustified if Hamas secured better weapons? You rightly questioned the idea that Israel's not fully expelling the Arab population was an indication of benevolence. Can't you see that your justification of indiscriminate rocket attacks on the grounds that the perpetrators aren't very good at it, is equally absurd?

Well, you'll have to show me where I justified Qassam and al-Qud rocket attacks on the grounds they're not very effective first. Actually, just show me where I justified their use.

It seems to be thought that Hamas and other groups fire these things out of the blue and just for the hell of it, just because they can and they like terrorising Israelis. The idea of them being a response to something and part of a coherent strategy is, apparently, absolutely ludicrous. They are a response to the siege of Gaza instituted as the Israeli response to an election (eminently democratic) outcome they did not like; the ICC counts blockades of ports etc. as an 'act of war'.


Your analysis of Zionism is the standard Arabist, leftist model. I see Zionism as a national liberation movement based on the right of the Jewish people to a secure national homeland. Equating it with "European Colonialism" is just lazy thinking. The right of return in which Zionists believe applies to Jews of all origins. The "nudge nudge" associations with Fascism of which "anti-Zionists" are so fond are based on scant evidence.

You can't just say it's 'lazy thinking'. I've explained what I see as the structural similarities of Zionism and European colonialism (and its most deplorable expression in fascism) - just replying that saying so is lazy doesn't cut it. I would, however, be interested to hear why you think what I've said is incorrect.

It's not based on scant evidence. What about Jabotinsky's fairly ardent support for Mussolini (and his reciprocal support for the WZO)? Or Adolf Eichmann's fact finding mission in Palestine - where he was hosted by the Haganah - regarding the transfer of European Jews to a new Jewish state in the area? That's off the top of my head, there's quite a bit more of this kind of thing.

I don't think Zionism can be fully equated with fascism (that would be lazy) but it shares a number of similarities as we've discussed previously.


Lots of people have flirted with Fascism - and not just the Daily Mail. You are I assume familiar with the Mufti of Jerusalem? If not, that's him on the left:- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/books/review/Segev-t.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/books/review/Segev-t.html) And copies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" can be had easily in any Arab country, usually in schoolbook stores.

I'm struggling to work out what relevance this has to anything.

[(((Fergus)))]

OK I'm naming names :greengrin: LiverpoolHibs, you are Bibi Netanyahu - what do you do in response to the terrorist/freedom fighter attacks?

[LiverpoolHibs]

OK I'm naming names :greengrin: LiverpoolHibs, you are Bibi Netanyahu - what do you do in response to the terrorist/freedom fighter attacks?

That's easy: I forgo Zionism, undergo a conversion to socialism and create a binational state covering Israel, Gaza and the West Bank (as well as returning the Golan Heights to Syria) grounded in equal religious, civil and political rights for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Piece of the proverbial...

[(((Fergus)))]

That's easy: I forgo Zionism, undergo a conversion to socialism and create a binational state covering Israel, Gaza and the West Bank (as well as returning the Golan Heights to Syria) grounded in equal religious, civil and political rights for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Piece of the proverbial...

How do you think you'll do in the next election? :greengrin

Seriously though, that scheme ignores the fundamental reason for the state of Israel - to provide a haven for the Jews. A jew would have to be "self-loathing" to the point of suicidal to vote for that.

[(((Fergus)))]

In other words: great solution for the (muslim) arabs - well the socialist ones anyway :wink: - terrible solution for everyone else.

Any chance of something more balanced?

[hibsbollah]

How do you think you'll do in the next election? :greengrin

Seriously though, that scheme ignores the fundamental reason for the state of Israel - to provide a haven for the Jews. A jew would have to be "self-loathing" to the point of suicidal to vote for that.

Why? it offers 'land for peace' as the nonsense jargon goes. Certainly it stands more chance of giving Jews a 'safe haven' than current policies, the only result of which seems likely to be more radicalised orphans, widows etc ready to join the next intifada.

[LiverpoolHibs]

How do you think you'll do in the next election? :greengrin

Seriously though, that scheme ignores the fundamental reason for the state of Israel - to provide a haven for the Jews. A jew would have to be "self-loathing" to the point of suicidal to vote for that.

Plenty of Jews support the One State solution. It's nice that you've decided they're all 'self-loathing' for doing so.

As an observational aside, it's interesting that the idea of Jews being 'out of place' in Europe is a core belief of both hardened Zionists and hardened anti-Semites.


In other words: great solution for the (muslim) arabs - well the socialist ones anyway :wink: - terrible solution for everyone else.

Any chance of something more balanced?

What do you mean 'something more balanced'? That's what I think he should do, I'm not going to make up something else to be 'balanced'.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Sorry, missed this first time round.


I do not believe Israel deliberately sets out to kill civilians. Yes, they damage civilian infrastructure in order to frighten the population out of supporting attacks on Israel and if civilians die, "well Hamas started the war". To some extent this works short-term however long-term I think it will only breed resentment and therefore new wars. What do you suggest the Israeli government do about the rocket, mortar and suicide attacks? I think that's a wonderful feat of intellectual gymnastics. :thumbsup: A more analogous situation IMO would be where the USA granted autonomy to Native American reservations and a few years later - after a civil war* - started to receive rocket, mortar and suicide bomb attacks on its territory.

* The fact that Fatah and Hamas conducted a civil war upon Israeli withdrawal speaks volumes about the importance of a Palestinian nation at ruling level. It seems they are more interested in personal agrandisement than developing a nation. Same thing happened in the 1880s-1940s. The landowning Palestinians were more than happy to take the Jewish dollar and didn't care about Palestinian nationhood.

It wasn't a civil war though, it was an attempted coup by Fatah against the democratically elected Hamas government.

More than that, it was a 'proxy war' by the U.S. and Israel, what with them having pumped millions into Fatah, armed them to the teeth, given them large-scale military training and then facilitated their mass entrance into Gaza with the aim of wiping out Hamas. It, erm, didn't go to plan.

A similar thing happened in the seventies and eighties when Fatah were at their height of power and the U.S. and Israel pumped millions into Hamas, armed them to the teeth, gave them large scale...... you see where this is going.


They aren't, though, are they? Only a couple of people on this thread are showing any support for Israel. Our media is generally anti-Israel. Even that BBC guy going to Bethlehem on his donkey for Christmas was sticking the boot in. :faf:

Sigh, do people actually believe this when they say it?

[(((Fergus)))]

Plenty of Jews support the One State solution. It's nice that you've decided they're all 'self-loathing' for doing so.


Sarcasm isn't nice, it doesn't contribute to the debate, let's be more disciplined. :agree:



What do you mean 'something more balanced'? That's what I think he should do, I'm not going to make up something else to be 'balanced'.

With respect, your suggestion totally ignores the basic reason for the existence of Israel: the need for a Jewish state. For that reason it is totally unfeasible. We need a solution that can actually be implemented. This will not be implemented because there are too many Israelis who do not trust the arabs.

[(((Fergus)))]

Why? it offers 'land for peace' as the nonsense jargon goes. Certainly it stands more chance of giving Jews a 'safe haven' than current policies, the only result of which seems likely to be more radicalised orphans, widows etc ready to join the next intifada.

Jews already have experience of a binational state - from the 1880s until 1948. It didn't work. It is not possible to share the land, less so now after all the troubles. The "demographic time bomb" does not offer a long-term safe haven.

I posted a peace plan that I thought would be viable the other day, the only people who wouldn't like it at the crazies on either side. Israel can control its crazies - it has evicted settlers many times - can Hamas?

[(((Fergus)))]

Sorry, missed this first time round.



It wasn't a civil war though, it was an attempted coup by Fatah against the democratically elected Hamas government.

More than that, it was a 'proxy war' by the U.S. and Israel, what with them having pumped millions into Fatah, armed them to the teeth, given them large-scale military training and then facilitated their mass entrance into Gaza with the aim of wiping out Hamas. It, erm, didn't go to plan.

A similar thing happened in the seventies and eighties when Fatah were at their height of power and the U.S. and Israel pumped millions into Hamas, armed them to the teeth, gave them large scale...... you see where this is going.



Israel/US did not force these factions to fight each other, did they? You can lead a horse to water, etc.

Again it's too easy to blame the US/Israel for everything. You have to see the faults on both sides or you don't see the whole picture. Not saying that I do, but that is what I would like to do.



Sigh, do people actually believe this when they say it?

The media loves the underdog, it's a better story.

[Betty Boop]

Did anybody watch this epiode of Dispatches when it was on? It highlighted the power that Britain's Israeli Lobby wields over politics and the media.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-42/episode-1

[Betty Boop]

Jews already have experience of a binational state - from the 1880s until 1948. It didn't work. It is not possible to share the land, less so now after all the troubles. The "demographic time bomb" does not offer a long-term safe haven.

I posted a peace plan that I thought would be viable the other day, the only people who wouldn't like it at the crazies on either side. Israel can control its crazies - it has evicted settlers many times - can Hamas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKwDrWFLrGk&feature=related

[LiverpoolHibs]

Sarcasm isn't nice, it doesn't contribute to the debate, let's be more disciplined. :agree:

It's certainly not as bad as dismissing any Jew who supports a binational state as 'self-loathing'. That's really quite distasteful.


With respect, your suggestion totally ignores the basic reason for the existence of Israel: the need for a Jewish state. For that reason it is totally unfeasible. We need a solution that can actually be implemented. This will not be implemented because there are too many Israelis who do not trust the arabs.

Well, I don't believe in the construction of nation states based, primarily, on ethnicity - so that doesn't mean a lot to me.

I'm not sure the two state solution is really much more feasible, never mind desirable. Or, in fact, that it would be any sort of guarantee of peace in the region. The only thing that will do that, as far as I can see, is a complete overthrow of the foundational ideology of Israel (and before anyone goes as mental at that as they did at that McIntosh chap, it would pretty much necessarily have to come from within rather than without). In a sense, the current set-up is a (corrupted) version of a two-state solution. And it aint up to much.

The prospect of this missile shield being up and running is a thoroughly worrying prospect. If I was Hezbollah, I'd already be making preparations for a re-match.


Israel/US did not force these factions to fight each other, did they? You can lead a horse to water, etc.

Again it's too easy to blame the US/Israel for everything. You have to see the faults on both sides or you don't see the whole picture. Not saying that I do, but that is what I would like to do.

I'm not really sure what that means. I was just explaining the problems with what you said about the Hamas-Fatah conflict, particular the meaningless aside about 'personal agrandisement'. Imperialism and colonialism thrive on the policy of 'divide and rule', it's just an enormous pity that Fatah were taken in.


The media loves the underdog, it's a better story.

Not really, most media outlets have a pretty deeply internalised bias towards power.

[(((Fergus)))]

It's certainly not as bad as dismissing any Jew who supports a binational state as 'self-loathing'. That's really quite distasteful.


I'm not dismissing anyone, it is my opinion that that option would ultimately be suicidal for Israel. I don't think all of them are self-loathing - hence the quotes - however I do think they are wrong. Incidentally, do you happen to know what proportion of Israeli jews support a one-state solution?




Well, I don't believe in the construction of nation states based, primarily, on ethnicity - so that doesn't mean a lot to me.


Well a lot of Israelis do and ultimately it's their business.



I'm not sure the two state solution is really much more feasible, never mind desirable. Or, in fact, that it would be any sort of guarantee of peace in the region. The only thing that will do that, as far as I can see, is a complete overthrow of the foundational ideology of Israel (and before anyone goes as mental at that as they did at that McIntosh chap, it would pretty much necessarily have to come from within rather than without). In a sense, the current set-up is a (corrupted) version of a two-state solution. And it aint up to much.


A two-state solution hasn't been tried yet so we have no way of knowing its effect.

If you honestly think a one-state solution would work you have more faith in human nature than I do.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm not dismissing anyone, it is my opinion that that option would ultimately be suicidal for Israel. I don't think all of them are self-loathing - hence the quotes - however I do think they are wrong. Incidentally, do you happen to know what proportion of Israeli jews support a one-state solution?

Apparently 94% of Israelis believe Israel must maintain it's Jewish majority, so pretty much negligible.

[hibsbollah]

Jews already have experience of a binational state - from the 1880s until 1948. It didn't work. It is not possible to share the land, less so now after all the troubles. The "demographic time bomb" does not offer a long-term safe haven.

I posted a peace plan that I thought would be viable the other day, the only people who wouldn't like it at the crazies on either side. Israel can control its crazies - it has evicted settlers many times - can Hamas?

They would have to be very old to have experience of that regime:faf: As to the peace plan you posted the other day, its not just 'crazies' who wouldnt like it, it guarantees Israel the land they invaded by conquest in 1967 and flies in the face of natural justice.

But I think we're going round in circles here.

[(((Fergus)))]

Apparently 94% of Israelis believe Israel must maintain it's Jewish majority, so pretty much negligible.

Well there you have it. One-state solution is not feasible. Would you like to amend your proposal Mr Netanyahu? :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

The prospect of this missile shield being up and running is a thoroughly worrying prospect. If I was Hezbollah, I'd already be making preparations for a re-match.

Oh dear, I've just read this (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147861003&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

Coupled with the missile shield, things seem to be moving inexorably towards another assault.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well there you have it. One-state solution is not feasible. Would you like to amend your proposal Mr Netanyahu? :greengrin

I've already said it would require the destruction of Zionism from within Israel. That merely confirms what I said. :greengrin

If you want something concrete or more 'feasible' in reply to your previous questions. It's pretty simple again, end the blockade of Gaza which constitutes not only an enormous moral crime but an Act of War as defined by the ICC.