What Have Those Israeli Scamps Been Up to Now?

[khib70]

Or to put it more simply, you support ethnic cleansing. That's not unfair, is it?



Right, as strange as people reading might find this; Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran (who are not one in the same despite your assertion) are all much happier with a Jewish presence in Palestine/Eretz Israel than you and your fellow end-timers are. Your entire weltanschauung is based on a millenarianism that is predicated on bringing an end to Judaism. The only reason for the existence of Israel in your mind is to fulfill a prophecy in which any Jew who doesn''t convert to Christianity is consigned to hell. You've got a brass-neck and a half to accuse anyone of anti-Semitism.



Certainly not if you and your fellow believers have anything to do with it.

A documentary called Waiting for Armageddon is available on most torrent sites if people want to have a look at how these people operate. They're actually worryingly influential - they fund settler organisations with millions of dollars every year.
No it's not unfair of you at all.

You have a fairly specific take on FH's motivation for his views, which I assume you are basing on sound evidence, as I know you wouldn't make such assumptions off the top of your head. I know that these people exist, and that they fund settler organisations. I also agree that their motivation is the worst kind of anti-semitism, and a desire for a Christianised world that is on a par with the worst excesses of Islamism.

It's interesting to see both you and him rejecting a two state solution ( although I know you would probably accept it if your first option wasn't available) for such crucially different reasons.

The assertion that settlers can basically build anywhere they like (provided its mentioned in the Bible somewhere) is arrogant and dangerous. Christian fundamentalists should take their stupid Book of Revelations tosh elsewhere, or try reading the whole Bible and learn some tolerance.

I greatly fear that while the government of Israel gives any credence to extremist lunatics of any faith ( like that odious Rabbi who addresssed the equally odious EDL demo in London), we are never going to see any progress.

[Betty Boop]

An enjoyable evening at the Alternative Book Festival, and the Out of The Blue Drill Hall is a great venue, although I think the organisers could have done with a bigger hall for the amount who turned up to hear Illan Pappe speak, it was packed out. William Parry was also good and gave a slideshow of photos from his new book 'Against The Wall'. I bought his book and two of Illan Pappe's, 'Gaza in Crisis' (co-written with Noam Chomsky), and 'Out Of The Frame' (The struggle for Academic Freedom in Israel). The event runs till Sunday and is well worth a visit. Fair enjoyed myself ! :greengrin

http://www.word-power.co.uk/viewEventList.php?category_id=1

[LiverpoolHibs]

An enjoyable evening at the Alternative Book Festival, and the Out of The Blue Drill Hall is a great venue, although I think the organisers could have done with a bigger hall for the amount who turned up to hear Illan Pappe speak, it was packed out. William Parry was also good and gave a slideshow of photos from his new book 'Against The Wall'. I bought his book and two of Illan Pappe's, 'Gaza in Crisis' (co-written with Noam Chomsky), and 'Out Of The Frame' (The struggle for Academic Freedom in Israel). The event runs till Sunday and is well worth a visit. Fair enjoyed myself ! :greengrin

http://www.word-power.co.uk/viewEventList.php?category_id=1

They really could, it was really unpleasantly hot in there. Didn't think it was particularly well structured but Pappe was excellent.

[Betty Boop]

They really could, it was really unpleasantly hot in there. Didn't think it was particularly well structured but Pappe was excellent.

He really was excellent, I could have listened to him all night . A really nice guy to talk to, as was William Parry, had a decent chat with them both, when I had my books signed. :greengrin

[ballengeich]

if you couch the terms of the debate in what Israel will accept

As in any conflict, a resolution has to be acceptable to both sides. A proposal which the Palestinians could not accept would be equally impractical.

I agree that Israeli should withdraw from the occupied territories. This should be part of a settlement which results in two countries which both feel confident that the other has no intention of mounting future attacks on it.

An Israeli withdrawal based on tahadiya/hudna would not lead to this. On Israel's withdrawal from Gaza the area became a base for attacks against Israeli civilian settlements, so Israel cannot be expected to have any confidence that a further unilateral withdrawal would not lead to worse consequences with it. Even if a tahadiya/hudna offer was unconditional it cannot be seen as anything other than a tactic to give Hamas time to build up strength with the intention of a future resumption of military action. It is not and was not intended to be a step towards peaceful coexistence between neighbouring states.

While Israel does many reprehensible things, I find the views and goals of some of its opponents equally unpleasant. In the longer term I hope that the more extreme parts of both societies can lose out to reasonable and humane people.

[LiverpoolHibs]

As in any conflict, a resolution has to be acceptable to both sides. A proposal which the Palestinians could not accept would be equally impractical.

Extracting small clauses from my posts and arguing off them completely without context isn't exactly conducive to a proper debate.

The resolution does not have to be 'acceptable to both sides' if what one side wants is incompatible with a just settlement.


I agree that Israeli should withdraw from the occupied territories. This should be part of a settlement which results in two countries which both feel confident that the other has no intention of mounting future attacks on it.

An Israeli withdrawal based on tahadiya/hudna would not lead to this. On Israel's withdrawal from Gaza the area became a base for attacks against Israeli civilian settlements, so Israel cannot be expected to have any confidence that a further unilateral withdrawal would not lead to worse consequences with it. Even if a tahadiya/hudna offer was unconditional it cannot be seen as anything other than a tactic to give Hamas time to build up strength with the intention of a future resumption of military action. It is not and was not intended to be a step towards peaceful coexistence between neighbouring states.

You've just again asserted that the tahadiya/hudna proposal isn't viable by referring to the aftermath of the Gaza disengagement. I responded to you doing this before in a bit of depth - you ignored that and have now decided to re-use the comparison. Again, it's not a very good way to conduct a debate.

[ballengeich]

Extracting small clauses from my posts and arguing off them completely without context isn't exactly conducive to a proper debate.

The resolution does not have to be 'acceptable to both sides' if what one side wants is incompatible with a just settlement.

A practical settlement is not going to give either side everything they want. To work, a settlement will have to be perceived by both sides as sufficiently just to be acceptable.


You've just again asserted that the tahadiya/hudna proposal isn't viable by referring to the aftermath of the Gaza disengagement. I responded to you doing this before in a bit of depth - you ignored that and have now decided to re-use the comparison. Again, it's not a very good way to conduct a debate.

My point was that if Hamas wants a ceasefire it can cease firing. This would benefit the people under its control in Gaza, as Israeli disproportionate military retaliation would not then occur. This would not solve the broader problem, but it would slightly alleviate the sad plight of Gaza's people.

Something which baffles me about the anti-Israeli left is a lack of examination of Israel's opponents. Hamas has a charter which expresses genocidal intent and its goal is to remove Israel and have an Islamic state covering all of Palestine. Would you expect any Israeli (and I don't just mean the religious nutters among the settlers) to treat any proposal from them with anything other than great suspicion? I know no Arabic, but from what I read, I gather that a hudna can be a device for gaining strength prior to resuming hostilities. Has there been any offer which does not contain conditions designed to ensure Israeli rejection of the offer? Can anyone have confidence that hostilities would not resume as soon as Hamas felt their chances of success had sufficiently improved?

If Israel is to be returned to its pre-67 borders something more than a suggestion that hostilities can be temporarily suspended is needed if a permanent, peaceful and just settlement is to be achieved.

[LiverpoolHibs]

My point was that if Hamas wants a ceasefire it can cease firing. This would benefit the people under its control in Gaza, as Israeli disproportionate military retaliation would not then occur. This would not solve the broader problem, but it would slightly alleviate the sad plight of Gaza's people.

Yes, you have made that point; and it's as equally a vile and illogical sentiment now as it was before. The 'sad plight of Gaza's people' betrays (accidentally, I think) something quite important. The Gazan people are not separate and distinct from the Palestinian people in the Occupied West Bank, Occupied East Jerusalem and in Israel. If you reduce the situation down to a humanitarian crisis in Gaza (for which we can all get teary-eyed and get some vicarious feel-good factor out of opposing) you actually contribute to muddying the issue. There is a humanitarian crisis, yes, but there's a tendency to look at it independent from the political problem and doing so frustrates Palestinian political aspirations. Gaza isn't the issue, Palestine is.

I assume (and apologies for getting into Godwin's Law territory) you would have said the same to members of the Jewish Combat Organisation who took part in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or the Partisans all over Europe - or substitute any historical comparison you like? "Lads, put your guns down. It won't solve the problem but at least we can stop these terrible disproportionate reprisals". But of course not, we rightly regard them as heroes. You're holding the victims responsible for their own suffering.

What you're missing is that Palestinian violent (and non-violent) resistance is both a response to the general conditions imposed upon them by the Israeli state and an 'old fashioned' national liberation struggle. It's not really surprising you miss that, most people seem to; because such struggles are sort of anachronistic - there are lots of military occupations all over the world but this is the only one coupled with a colonial agenda. It's the last anti-colonial resistance and, as such, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to people nowadays. Or to quote Karma Nabulsi in her rather fantastic recent article (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n20/karma-nabulsi/diary),

'Palestinian's are currently trapped in a historical moment that - as the contemporary world sees it - belongs too the past. The language the situation demands had only life within an ideology that has now disappeared.'

Now, I suppose you can reasonably object to violent resistance in toto (I wouldn't, for a variety of reasons) but what are you putting in it's place? The militants cease firing.......and what? As it stands, it's just an appallingly banal pronouncement from someone living a life with dignity in relative peace and comfort whilst having a degree of complicity (as we all do) in what is being done to the Palestinians. A silly liberal dictat of what they should do whilst they are living with the occupation and are quite capable of thinking through such things for themselves.


Something which baffles me about the anti-Israeli left is a lack of examination of Israel's opponents. Hamas has a charter which expresses genocidal intent and its goal is to remove Israel and have an Islamic state covering all of Palestine. Would you expect any Israeli (and I don't just mean the religious nutters among the settlers) to treat any proposal from them with anything other than great suspicion? I know no Arabic, but from what I read, I gather that a hudna can be a device for gaining strength prior to resuming hostilities. Has there been any offer which does not contain conditions designed to ensure Israeli rejection of the offer? Can anyone have confidence that hostilities would not resume as soon as Hamas felt their chances of success had sufficiently improved?

I think your bafflement is a product of either not paying attention or not actually caring about what has been said on the matter. Hamas have not repudiated their (disgustingly anti-Semitic and generally thick as ****) charter, no, but every single meaningful academic study of the organisation concludes that Hamas have moved well beyond it and no longer uses it for the basis of its policies towards Israel and the Jewish people as a whole (I'll have to insert my usual caveat here that this is not a defence of Hamas and that I do not like them as an organisation; it's just an attempt to actual argue about facts rather than the usual misunderstandings and misrepresentations). The charter calls for an Islamic state covering all of historic Palestine; in practice Hamas explicitly accepts a two-state solution on the '67 borders. Again, you need to get this back to the proper legal parametres; Hamas has done what is required of it under international law, Israel has - flagrantly - not.

The question you put to me on the ceasefire/truce question is bizarre. Hamas' offer is designed not to be accepted by Israel? To what end?


If Israel is to be returned to its pre-67 borders something more than a suggestion that hostilities can be temporarily suspended is needed if a permanent, peaceful and just settlement is to be achieved.

And that's just complete supposition that Israel's actions outside its '67 borders are a response to the existensial Arab threat. I think the evidence pionts to this being nonsense.

[ballengeich]

I assume (and apologies for getting into Godwin's Law territory) you would have said the same to members of the Jewish Combat Organisation who took part in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or the Partisans all over Europe - or substitute any historical comparison you like? "Lads, put your guns down. It won't solve the problem but at least we can stop these terrible disproportionate reprisals". But of course not, we rightly regard them as heroes. You're holding the victims responsible for their own suffering.

Another illogical leap to allow you to argue against an opinion you assume I would hold. Israel does not have a policy of exterminating all Palestinians so the options available are entirely different. I may have encountered a worse analogy than yours, but I can't think when or where,


I think your bafflement is a product of either not paying attention or not actually caring about what has been said on the matter. Hamas have not repudiated their (disgustingly anti-Semitic and generally thick as ****) charter, no, but every single meaningful academic study of the organisation concludes that Hamas have moved well beyond it and no longer uses it for the basis of its policies towards Israel and the Jewish people as a whole (I'll have to insert my usual caveat here that this is not a defence of Hamas and that I do not like them as an organisation; it's just an attempt to actual argue about facts rather than the usual misunderstandings and misrepresentations). The charter calls for an Islamic state covering all of historic Palestine; in practice Hamas explicitly accepts a two-state solution on the '67 borders.

A few academic studies may convince you in the safety of the UK. If I were an Israeli, I'd need something more than a Hamas acceptance that it can't achieve its objectives - yet.

The question you put to me on the ceasefire/truce question is bizarre. Hamas' offer is designed not to be accepted by Israel? To what end?

To the end of convincing supporters and gullible onlookers that they have an unreasonable opponent. Some of the Israeli posturing regarding settlement cessation is similar. It's a common tactic in personal and political conflicts.




I came on to this thread because I felt that your proposals for resolution of the problem were simplistic and impractical. Nothing you've posted has done anything to move me from my original view. Unless you come up with something showing more understanding of the complexity of the situation it's unlikely that I'll bother responding again. Let's just say that we have insufficient common starting ground for progress to be made.

[Betty Boop]

The 'Road to Hope' aid convoy enters Gaza, the convoy includes eight survivors from the Freedom Flotilla which was attacked in May, when nine were killed.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/152675.html

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well, the point (and it's a pretty major point) is that the P.L.O. from 1981 onwards took the incredible step of recognising Israel on the 1967 borders thereby accepting a Palestinian state on 21.5%of their historic homeland (seriously, do people not get the gravity of such a concession?) and this still wasn't enough to halt Israeli rejectionism or the wider world's happy compliance with this rejectionism.

The P.L.O. abided by what the international legal consensus asked of it - to recognise Israel. Israel refused then and still refuses to make the concessions asked of it by the same consensus - to withdraw from Gaza (a de facto occupation), the West Bank and East Jerusalem (the de jure occupations). Such was the problem posed by the P.L.O.'s "peace offensive" - to use Avner Yaniv's phrase - that Israel invaded Lebanon to wipe out the P.L.O. as a going concern.

The idea that there are two sides here both sharing a degree of the blame for the failure to reach a settlement is, demonstrably and uncontrovertibly, rubbish. Since 1981 Palestinian representatives have made concession after concession while Israel has made none. For another case study have a look at the Camp David talks in 2000 and the Taba summit a year later. Such was the quisling nature of the P.L.O. at this stage that they made concession after concession above and beyond what was required of them by international law - which essentially ammounted to a acquiescence in Israel's breaking of international law and the immiseration of the people they were meant to be there to represent. International law states that the transfer of a population to occupied territories is illegal. At Camp David and Taba the P.L.O. agreed to a situation where 50% of Israeli settlements in the West Bank were allowed to stay. International law states that it is illegal to acquire territory through via military conquest. At Camp David and Taba the P.L.O. were willing to make concessions on the borders of Israel with nominal post-67 Palestine. They agreed to a division of Jerusalem when, under the partition plan and various UNSCRs, Israel has no claim to Jerusalem and only acquired it as a result of war. They even compromised on the right of return of refugees when they stated that they would not make the demand for the full six million people who, under international law, have the right to return to the homeland from which they were expelled to be able to do so.

So, to put this the best I can. Israel, due to a number of factors, has been so flagrant in its abuses and its violations of international law and such is its standing amongst certain (enormously powerful) nations that the Palestinians can agree to give so much away, Israel can reject it and the conversations moves on to what else the Palestinians can give away. If talks had been conducted from the start on the basis of what Israel is entitled to under international law rather than what it wants and which of these wants it might concede, the conflict would almost certainly have been settled decades ago.

It achieves absolutely nothing to humour this sort of thing, rather it only acts as a ******ant to the debate and to the possibility of a genuine settlement.

Slightly late but the wikileaks/al-Jazeera release of the Palestine papers provides an apposite addendum to this.

During the most recent round of peace process negotiations - no laughing at the back. The quisling Palestinian representatives offered:

1) The annexation, to Israel, of all illegal settlements in Occupied East Jerusalem with the exception of one. To give Israel, as Saed Erekat put it, the 'biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history'.

2) The ceding of parts of the Occupied West Bank illegally settled by Israelis to Israel.

3) The ceding of al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, over which Israel has no claim under international law, to a 'joint commitee'.

4) To allow only a 'symbolic' number of refugees into Palestine under the 'right of return'. Some 10,000 persons out of all of those who have the right of return under international law. Incidentally, the leaks also state that Netanyahu has said that 'not one refugee shall return'.

To all of this, Tzipi Livni replied "we do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands". So, who's obstructing a settlement again?

As Tariq Ali put it in the LRB recently the PA negotiators are/were willing to surrender practically everything but their own salaries.

[hibsbollah]

Slightly late but the wikileaks/al-Jazeera release of the Palestine papers provides an apposite addendum to this.

During the most recent round of peace process negotiations - no laughing at the back. The quisling Palestinian representatives offered:

1) The annexation, to Israel, of all illegal settlements in Occupied East Jerusalem with the exception of one. To give Israel, as Saed Erekat put it, the 'biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history'.

2) The ceding of parts of the Occupied West Bank illegally settled by Israelis to Israel.

3) The ceding of al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, over which Israel has no claim under international law, to a 'joint commitee'.

4) To allow only a 'symbolic' number of refugees into Palestine under the 'right of return'. Some 10,000 persons out of all of those who have the right of return under international law. Incidentally, the leaks also state that Netanyahu has said that 'not one refugee shall return'.

To all of this, Tzipi Livni replied "we do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands". So, who's obstructing a settlement again?

As Tariq Ali put it in the LRB recently the PA negotiators are/were willing to surrender practically everything but their own salaries.

:agree:
I saw that. Fatah's epitaph, surely.

[khib70]

:agree:
I saw that. Fatah's epitaph, surely.
Yes, let's get back to a situation where the Palestinian side makes no concessions whatsoever, while Israel concedes whatever the Palestinians want them too.

That'll work OK. It's not like this kind of irredentism plays into the hands of extremists on both sides, or anything. And the use of words like "quisling" is a particularly helpful use of language, isn't it?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Yes, let's get back to a situation where the Palestinian side makes no concessions whatsoever, while Israel concedes whatever the Palestinians want them too.

Firstly, which particular set of negotiations are you referring to here?

Secondly, and sorry for another question but just to clarify, you believe that it is necessary and morally correct for the Palestinian negotiators to collaborate with Israel in breaking numerous international laws in order to reach a 'just' settlement?


That'll work OK. It's not like this kind of irredentism plays into the hands of extremists on both sides, or anything. And the use of words like "quisling" is a particularly helpful use of language, isn't it?

Is it unhelpful? Is a nobody on a football message board calling the PNA 'quislings' going to affect the situation at all?

I think the actions of the Palestinian negotiators are a dictionary definition of 'quisling'. They are, without question, going against the - vast, vast - majority opinion of the people they are there to represent in order to collaborate with Israel in reaching a settlement (of course, the Israelis know that's not actually going to happen. They just follow the proscription; 'pocket the gains and see what else you can get at the next round'.) that violates numerous international laws. What's your objection?

[(((Fergus)))]

Firstly, which particular set of negotiations are you referring to here?

Secondly, and sorry for another question but just to clarify, you believe that it is necessary and morally correct for the Palestinian negotiators to collaborate with Israel in breaking numerous international laws in order to reach a 'just' settlement?



Is it unhelpful? Is a nobody on a football message board calling the PNA 'quislings' going to affect the situation at all?

I think the actions of the Palestinian negotiators are a dictionary definition of 'quisling'. They are, without question, going against the - vast, vast - majority opinion of the people they are there to represent in order to collaborate with Israel in reaching a settlement (of course, the Israelis know that's not actually going to happen. They just follow the proscription; 'pocket the gains and see what else you can get at the next round'.) that violates numerous international laws. What's your objection?

What is the majority opinion?

[LiverpoolHibs]

What is the majority opinion?

I don't know and it's not my place to guess.

[(((Fergus)))]

I don't know and it's not my place to guess.

Are there no opinion polls?

[Betty Boop]

Slightly late but the wikileaks/al-Jazeera release of the Palestine papers provides an apposite addendum to this.

During the most recent round of peace process negotiations - no laughing at the back. The quisling Palestinian representatives offered:

1) The annexation, to Israel, of all illegal settlements in Occupied East Jerusalem with the exception of one. To give Israel, as Saed Erekat put it, the 'biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history'.

2) The ceding of parts of the Occupied West Bank illegally settled by Israelis to Israel.

3) The ceding of al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, over which Israel has no claim under international law, to a 'joint commitee'.

4) To allow only a 'symbolic' number of refugees into Palestine under the 'right of return'. Some 10,000 persons out of all of those who have the right of return under international law. Incidentally, the leaks also state that Netanyahu has said that 'not one refugee shall return'.

To all of this, Tzipi Livni replied "we do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands". So, who's obstructing a settlement again?

As Tariq Ali put it in the LRB recently the PA negotiators are/were willing to surrender practically everything but their own salaries.

I watched Saeb Erekat being interviewed by David Frost on Al Jazeera, he said that the contents of the leaked papers, had been 'taken out of context',( he already stated that they were a pack of lies) and showed that the Palestinians were a serious partner for peace. :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

I don't know and it's not my place to guess.

Seems a bit odd to say that you don't know what the majority opinion is while also saying that "They are, without question, going against the - vast, vast - majority opinion of the people they are there to represent..."

[LiverpoolHibs]

Seems a bit odd to say that you don't know what the majority opinion is while also saying that "They are, without question, going against the - vast, vast - majority opinion of the people they are there to represent..."

Well no, not really. I don't want to speculate on what the majority Palestinian opinion on what a just settlement would be from a position of ignorance. When I say that the 'vast, vast majority' within Palestinian society do not and would not give support to the the PA negotiation team's continued violation of the thawabet (in particular the right of return for Palestinian refugees) I am not speaking from a position of ignorance.

[khib70]

Firstly, which particular set of negotiations are you referring to here?

Secondly, and sorry for another question but just to clarify, you believe that it is necessary and morally correct for the Palestinian negotiators to collaborate with Israel in breaking numerous international laws in order to reach a 'just' settlement?



Is it unhelpful? Is a nobody on a football message board calling the PNA 'quislings' going to affect the situation at all?

I think the actions of the Palestinian negotiators are a dictionary definition of 'quisling'. They are, without question, going against the - vast, vast - majority opinion of the people they are there to represent in order to collaborate with Israel in reaching a settlement (of course, the Israelis know that's not actually going to happen. They just follow the proscription; 'pocket the gains and see what else you can get at the next round'.) that violates numerous international laws. What's your objection?


What is the majority opinion?


I don't know and it's not my place to guess.

So, basically, you have no idea what the "vast vast majority opinion" is, but you're absolutely certain that the PA negotiators are" going against" it.:confused:

That's a bit rich, even for you.

[LiverpoolHibs]

So, basically, you have no idea what the "vast vast majority opinion" is, but you're absolutely certain that the PA negotiators are" going against" it.:confused:

That's a bit rich, even for you.

Sigh, were you planning on replying to any of the points or questions?

You, and anyone else, are entitled to think that it is incorrect to state that the vast majority of individuals within Palestinian society support, for example, the right of return for Palestinian refugees. It's just that you will be wrong.

It is, however, something of a leap to go from that to state what the majority opinion within Palestine is concerning what would amount to a just settlement when there isn't a great deal of evidence to inform such a statement.

[khib70]

Sigh, were you planning on replying to any of the points or questions?

You, and anyone else, are entitled to think that it is incorrect to state that the vast majority of individuals within Palestinian society support, for example, the right of return for Palestinian refugees. It's just that you will be wrong.

It is, however, something of a leap to go from that to state what the majority opinion within Palestine is concerning what would amount to a just settlement when there isn't a great deal of evidence to inform such a statement.
You've lost the plot

You were the one who posted that the negotiators were "going against the view of the vast vast majority", thus implying that you knew what that was.

You then admitted that you had "no idea" what the majority opinion was.

I. on the other hand, have never made any claim to know what the majority Palestinian view is. Maybe we'd find out if Hamas held the elections that are a year overdue.

Your points are simply what I said they were. That Israel must make all the concessions. So there's no need to respond.

For what its worth I think the concessions in the WIkileaks document go far too far and practically legitimise the settlement policy, which I think should be stopped right away.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You've lost the plot

You were the one who posted that the negotiators were "going against the view of the vast vast majority", thus implying that you knew what that was.

You then admitted that you had "no idea" what the majority opinion was.

I. on the other hand, have never made any claim to know what the majority Palestinian view is. Maybe we'd find out if Hamas held the elections that are a year overdue.

Your points are simply what I said they were. That Israel must make all the concessions. So there's no need to respond.

For what its worth I think the concessions in the WIkileaks document go far too far and practically legitimise the settlement policy, which I think should be stopped right away.

I haven't lost the plot and I'm perfectly aware of what I've said. You're just missing the point completely.

In the post that Fergus replied to I stated that the 'concessions' the PA negotiating team went against the opinions and belief of the people they were there to represent. That is to say, the vast majority of Palestinians do and would not accept a settlement that does not include - again, for example - the right of return for refugees that is enshrined in international law, and rightly so. Fergus asked what the 'majority opinion' is. That is a very different question and one that there is little point in me guessing at.

I really don't have much of an clue what the rest of your post means; it doesn't answer anything I asked. If you think the PA negotiators have gone 'too far' why did you reply to hibsbollah's post in the manner you did?

[Betty Boop]

David Horowitz has a vicious rant against the Palestinians at Brooklyn College.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTtj9Mc000

[Beefster]

David Horowitz has a vicious rant against the Palestinians at Brooklyn College.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTtj9Mc000

What an utter ****. A lot of students in the room were not much better.

[(((Fergus)))]

If you're into random Horowitz clips, this one's a belter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE

[hibsbollah]

Horowitz's constant regrain is that right wing extremism like his is ignored by the 'liberal elite', despite him being regularly shown spouting his bile on fox news and the like.

Why is it that the more the worlds media is in the hands of fewer and fewer right wing ideologues, that the right complain ever more loudly about a non-existent 'liberal elite'? Expect kelvin the **** mackenzie to do similarly on tomorrows question time.

[khib70]

Horowitz's constant regrain is that right wing extremism like his is ignored by the 'liberal elite', despite him being regularly shown spouting his bile on fox news and the like.

Why is it that the more the worlds media is in the hands of fewer and fewer right wing ideologues, that the right complain ever more loudly about a non-existent 'liberal elite'? Expect kelvin the **** mackenzie to do similarly on tomorrows question time.
Horowitz is a horrible, horrible man. However there certainly is a "liberal elite". Even a brief perusal of the Guardian or Independent, or any kind of exposure to the BBC's news coverage will reinforce that belief.

And if you want a real liberal elite, I give you the governing body of the London School of Economics, who call for academic boycotts of Israel, while pocketing Saif al Islam Gadaffi's cash, and naming lecture halls after Arab holocaust deniers.

Same sort of people who (justifiably) howl in outrage over deaths in Bahrain but are much less excited about the deaths of hundreds(potentially thousands) in Libya. However, the howling will start in earnest if there is any kind of Western intervention in Libya.

Same sort of people who shouted the odds for years about unilateral disarmament (well, only by the West), but are quite happy for Iran to be cooking up a nuclear arsenal.

And which prominent figures on the liberal Left have openly condemned the recent murders of the Fogel family?

You don't have to be part of the liberal elite to despise fascists like Horowitz - but it does exist,

[khib70]

Hmm. Deafening but unsurprising silence on here about this....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

Fair play to Goldstone for coming out with this. What did he really expect from the UN "Human Rights" Committee, though?

[Betty Boop]

Hmm. Deafening but unsurprising silence on here about this....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

Fair play to Goldstone for coming out with this. What did he really expect from the UN "Human Rights" Committee, though?

Quite an about turn, don't you think ?

[khib70]

Quite an about turn, don't you think ?
:agree:It certainly is. Quite remarkable really.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Hmm. Deafening but unsurprising silence on here about this....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

Fair play to Goldstone for coming out with this. What did he really expect from the UN "Human Rights" Committee, though?

Christ, every time...

I can't speak for anyone else but I really wasn't in the least surprised by his piece. Goldstone had been saying for quite some time that the report would have been 'different' (which is not to say more accurate) had Israel cooperated with the investigation.

As it stands the Washington Post op-ed is an absolute nothing. There is not one single substantial alteration that he suggests to the initial Report (and let's keep in mind that this was a group report, not the work of one man) and his exculpatory reference to the murder of the al-Simouni family is just bizarre; he gives the indication that all 29 family members were killed by the Israeli shelling. That's nonsense - it took nearly a week for them all to be killed.

Even if we accept that Goldstone has genuinely 'changed his mind' on the question of the IDF and IAF deliberately targetting civilians that still leaves, and I'm sorry to impinge on your crowing and everything, six other tightly defined areas of the Goldstone report concerend with Israeli war crimes that he does not even mention - presumably (and, again, unfortunately for the apologists presumably) because he does not intend to convey a discounting of the report. They are:

1) The siege of Gaza and long-running Israeli collective punishment.

2) The Israeli armed forces taking insufficient steps to protect Palestinian civilians

3) The use of various munition in such a way as to violate international law. Such as the use of white phosphorus and flechette shells in built up, civilian areas

4) The deliberate destruction of the Gazan civilian infrastructure.

5) The deliberate destruction of the Gazan political infrastructure.

6) Indiscriminate military assaults in areas known to be populated by civilians (distinct from the question of deliberate targetting).

Goldstone only decides to question the conclusion that Israel deliberately targetted civilians - and very uncovincingly at that - not that they are innocent of all war crimes charges. Your final line suggests pretty strongly that you did not know this as you haven't read the report.

The only bit of the article I was even slightly surprised by (the disgustingly weak reference to the al-Simounis apart) was that he made no reference to the fact that the Israeli investigations that he lauds - such as they are and which we can't really get into here, though I suggest you read the McGowan-Davis report Goldstone mentions - came about entirely as a result of the international impact of the original Report.

On the matter of the one part of the war-crimes accusations Goldstone has now questioned - the deliberate targetting of civilians - it almost become s a matter of semantics. He writes that it has been established that "civilians were not intentionally targetted as a matter of policy". That, to me, is a very different matter than if he had stated simply, not to mention legalistically, that the Israeli armed forces did not deliberately target civilians during the Gaza war - and I think he has chosen his words very carefully. There is literally mountains of evidence from numerous IDF conscripts who fought in Gaza (many associated with the Breaking the Silence group) who attest to the fact that their commanders did not apply the process of 'means and intentions' when establishing targets. This means they were tacitly and deliberately targetting civilians.

[khib70]

Christ, every time...

I can't speak for anyone else but I really wasn't in the least surprised by his piece. Goldstone had been saying for quite some time that the report would have been 'different' (which is not to say more accurate) had Israel cooperated with the investigation.

As it stands the Washington Post op-ed is an absolute nothing. There is not one single substantial alteration that he suggests to the initial Report (and let's keep in mind that this was a group report, not the work of one man) and his exculpatory reference to the murder of the al-Simouni family is just bizarre; he gives the indication that all 29 family members were killed by the Israeli shelling. That's nonsense - it took nearly a week for them all to be killed.

Even if we accept that Goldstone has genuinely 'changed his mind' on the question of the IDF and IAF deliberately targetting civilians that still leaves, and I'm sorry to impinge on your crowing and everything, six other tightly defined areas of the Goldstone report concerend with Israeli war crimes that he does not even mention - presumably (and, again, unfortunately for the apologists presumably) because he does not intend to convey a discounting of the report. They are:

1) The siege of Gaza and long-running Israeli collective punishment.

2) The Israeli armed forces taking insufficient steps to protect Palestinian civilians

3) The use of various munition in such a way as to violate international law. Such as the use of white phosphorus and flechette shells in built up, civilian areas

4) The deliberate destruction of the Gazan civilian infrastructure.

5) The deliberate destruction of the Gazan political infrastructure.

6) Indiscriminate military assaults in areas known to be populated by civilians (distinct from the question of deliberate targetting).

Goldstone only decides to question the conclusion that Israel deliberately targetted civilians - and very uncovincingly at that - not that they are innocent of all war crimes charges. Your final line suggests pretty strongly that you did not know this as you haven't read the report.

The only bit of the article I was even slightly surprised by (the disgustingly weak reference to the al-Simounis apart) was that he made no reference to the fact that the Israeli investigations that he lauds - such as they are and which we can't really get into here, though I suggest you read the McGowan-Davis report Goldstone mentions - came about entirely as a result of the international impact of the original Report.

On the matter of the one part of the war-crimes accusations Goldstone has now questioned - the deliberate targetting of civilians - it almost become s a matter of semantics. He writes that it has been established that "civilians were not intentionally targetted as a matter of policy". That, to me, is a very different matter than if he had stated simply, not to mention legalistically, that the Israeli armed forces did not deliberately target civilians during the Gaza war - and I think he has chosen his words very carefully. There is literally mountains of evidence from numerous IDF conscripts who fought in Gaza (many associated with the Breaking the Silence group) who attest to the fact that their commanders did not apply the process of 'means and intentions' when establishing targets. This means they were tacitly and deliberately targetting civilians.
Well, I have to admit I was fishing a bit there, but not without success, it seems:greengrin

Even if I had the time to respond in detail to your interpretation of the report, it's nnot really the issue here. The issue is that its author has recanted the single most devastating accusation within its pages - that Israel deliberately targetted ccivilians.

Neither was I "crowing". There are actions on both sides during Cast Lead that demand serious independent investigation. However, the UNHRC is about as far from serious independent investigation as it's possible to get. The other significant factor in Goldstone's new position is the light it throws on the utter lack of credibility of the body who commissioned it. And I admit I haven't read all 5573 pages of it - the chance would be a fine thing - but I'm reasonably familiar with the thrust of it. Even given its fundamental bias, which began with its commissioning brief and the composition of the group, it still produces some criticism of Hamas, which you (again) fail to mention. And, which Hamas has done absolutely nothing about - cf 400 seperate Israeli investigations.;

Excellent piece from the Guardian here. God, I never thought I'd ever type that phrase:greengrin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/06/goldstone-report-israel-palestine

The fact is that what Goldstone says in the Post casts serious doubt on everything in the report, regardless of whether he specifically refutes it. The monstrous dual standards of the UNHRC and those who share its world view remove any remaining credibility from this seriously flawed, poorly drafted and thoroughly partisan document..

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well, I have to admit I was fishing a bit there, but not without success, it seems:greengrin

Even if I had the time to respond in detail to your interpretation of the report, it's nnot really the issue here. The issue is that its author has recanted the single most devastating accusation within its pages - that Israel deliberately targetted ccivilians.

No, I thought I'd gone into this.

Firstly, Goldstone writes that civilians were not deliberately targetted 'as a matter of policy'. As I've already said, this is not the same as saying 'civilians were not deliberately targetted.

What's more, the 'evidence' he uses to back up his claim, the new McGowan-Davis Report (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.16.24_AUV.pdf), actually says nothing of the sort. His single reference to deliberate IDF killings of civilians and subsequent investigations is to that of the al-Simouni family. Far from the new Report supporting his position it states that they do 'not have sufficient information to establish the current status of the criminal investigations' and explicitly states that the deliberate nature of the attack could not be confirmed or denied as it stands. Later they, again explicitly, state that;

"The Committee reiterates the conclusion of its previous report that there is no indication that Israel has opened investigations into the actions of those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw Operation Cast Lead."

So where, exactly, is Goldstone getting the information that the McGowan-Davis Report has cleared Israel of deliberately targetting civilians as a 'matter of policy'?


Neither was I "crowing". There are actions on both sides during Cast Lead that demand serious independent investigation. However, the UNHRC is about as far from serious independent investigation as it's possible to get. The other significant factor in Goldstone's new position is the light it throws on the utter lack of credibility of the body who commissioned it. And I admit I haven't read all 5573 pages of it - the chance would be a fine thing - but I'm reasonably familiar with the thrust of it. Even given its fundamental bias, which began with its commissioning brief and the composition of the group, it still produces some criticism of Hamas, which you (again) fail to mention. And, which Hamas has done absolutely nothing about - cf 400 seperate Israeli investigations.;

I'm not sure that being 'reasonably familiar with the thrust of it' really cuts it if you are so determined to regard it and protray it as uniformly dishonest and pernicious. Oh, and it's a mere 575 pages at my count.

Out of interest, is its commissioning brief, as detailed in the Executive Summary, one of the bits you've read? Even if I don my Marky Regev hat I fail to see anything in the least controversial about that.

I have no idea what the references to Hamas and myself pertain to. I'm perfectly well aware that the report also holds Hamas to have committed war crimes.

I'm very much in agreement on the issue of the need for a full independent investigation, take it to the ICC.


Excellent piece from the Guardian here. God, I never thought I'd ever type that phrase:greengrin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/06/goldstone-report-israel-palestine

The fact is that what Goldstone says in the Post casts serious doubt on everything in the report, regardless of whether he specifically refutes it. The monstrous dual standards of the UNHRC and those who share its world view remove any remaining credibility from this seriously flawed, poorly drafted and thoroughly partisan document..

No, Goldstone's piece casts nothing on nothing - except, perhaps, light on the effect the campaign against him may have had.

You do know that the UNHCR, whatever you may think of it, has no bearing on the actual content of any of the reports it commissions? Surely you'd have to point out the monstrous duel standards of those who made up the team - in fact isn't it a bit odd of those Israel-haters at the UNHCR to appoint a committed Zionist to head the mission?

Again, are you sure it's ok to decide that the Report is 'seriously flawed, poorly drafted [what?] and thoroughly partisan' when, erm, you haven't read it?

[(((Fergus)))]

No, Goldstone's piece casts nothing on nothing - except, perhaps, light on the effect the campaign against him may have had.


You mean he was pressured into saying...nothing?

Also a bit desperate to claim that Goldstone is a Zionist now, albeit convenient. If he finds against Israel: see, Israel must be evil, even this Jew says so. If he finds for Israel: well, he would say that wouldn't he - he's a Zionist.

Anyway, putting all that to one side: how in your opinion should Israel deal with the Arab war crimes committed as a matter of course from Gaza (e.g., intentionally hitting a school bus with a laser-guided anti-tank missile - do you applaud that by the way)? Assuming you say "lift the blockade", say the blockade was lifted 100% and the attacks increased, with unrestricted Iranian munitions, what in your opinion would be the moral response from Israel, if any?

[LiverpoolHibs]

You mean he was pressured into saying...nothing?

He was pressured into the statement. But the statement disputes almost nothing in the original report.


Also a bit desperate to claim that Goldstone is a Zionist now, albeit convenient. If he finds against Israel: see, Israel must be evil, even this Jew says so. If he finds for Israel: well, he would say that wouldn't he - he's a Zionist.

Baffling. I'm not using 'Zionist' pejoratively. He was a Zionist when he conducted the research for the report, he was a Zionist when the report was published and he's a Zionist now. I've no idea where the confusion is or where you're getting ideas of desperation from - unless your conception of a Zionist is someone who never, ever criticises Israel regardless of the war crimes it commits and the international laws it violates. Yep, I think it's probably that.


Anyway, putting all that to one side: how in your opinion should Israel deal with the Arab war crimes committed as a matter of course from Gaza (e.g., intentionally hitting a school bus with a laser-guided anti-tank missile - do you applaud that by the way)? Assuming you say "lift the blockade", say the blockade was lifted 100% and the attacks increased, with unrestricted Iranian munitions, what in your opinion would be the moral response from Israel, if any?

Do I applaud a rocket hitting a school bus? Fergus, I think you're forgetting that it's you who is completely bereft of morality, rationality and historical understanding (aptly demonstrated in the above section once again) when it comes to this conflict, not me.

We've certainly never been over the broader question before, oh no. Maybe it was during that, halcyon, period when you were refusing to read or respond to anything I wrote. I realise it's sort of Sisyphean to try to attempt to reply you as if you do possess a degree of morality and rationality but you can read Allegra Pacheco's recent article in Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/go-ask-the-palestinians-1.353458) if you're actually interested in the Palestinian rules of engagement.

Moving on, the other members of the Goldstone team on the Washington Post op-ed. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/14/goldstone-report-statement-un-gaza)

Also, I've mentioned the film 'Arna's Children', and how fantastic it is a couple, of times on this and the other thread. The killing of Juliano Mer-Khamis (coupled with yet another murderous assault on Gaza) was absolutely horrific news. An absolutely fantastic human being.

"I am 100 percent Jewish and 100 percent Palestinian." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfihEfh97Kg)

On his most recent production in which he comes close to predicting his own murder. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD50MVRH9RI)

[discman]

www.commondreams.org/views06/0719-33.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0719-33.htm)



Hope this link works the article is titled "Israelis See Their Own Nation As "Neighbourhood Bully" sadly 5 years on and nothing has changed,but more of the same!

[khib70]

We've certainly never been over the broader question before, oh no. Maybe it was during that, halcyon, period when you were refusing to read or respond to anything I wrote. I realise it's sort of Sisyphean to try to attempt to reply you as if you do possess a degree of morality and rationality but you can read Allegra Pacheco's recent article in Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/go-ask-the-palestinians-1.353458) if you're actually interested in the Palestinian rules of engagement.


Just as I completely accept that you don't applaud or approve of the targeting of a schoolbus, I find it hard to believe that you think the Haaretz article you quote represents any kind of reality in terms of Palestinian "rules of engagement".

From Kibbutz Misgav Am in 1980:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/24/remote_kibbutz_sees_return_of_bad_times/
to the Barmitzvah bombing in Beit Yisrael in 2002:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/3/Suicide%20bombing%20in%20the%20Beit%20Yisrael%20ne ighborhood%20i
right up to the recent Fogel murders ( for which two teenage PFLP members have been arrested), Palestinian militants have not only targeted children, but have used them as weapons or human shields.

The Haaretz piece is a laughable whitewash based on patchy anecdotal evidence. But that pretty well sums up the Left's view of the Palestinian militants, whatever faction they belong to.

The rest of your post is mainly gratuitous Fergus-bashing. however, the killing of Juliano Mer-Khamis was horrific. A brave and talented man.

[Betty Boop]

Our old friend Riz is off to Palestine in a humanitarian convoy. All the best son !

http://theaimresistance.blogspot.com/2011/04/eastborn-travels-to-palestine-for.html

[khib70]

Our old friend Riz is off to Palestine in a humanitarian convoy. All the best son !

http://theaimresistance.blogspot.com/2011/04/eastborn-travels-to-palestine-for.html
Ah yes, the guy who was applauding the deaths of British soldiers in Afghanistan.

I sincerely hope no harm comes to him, but he's just the type needed in a powderkeg area.:rolleyes:

[Betty Boop]

Ah yes, the guy who was applauding the deaths of British soldiers in Afghanistan.

I sincerely hope no harm comes to him, but he's just the type needed in a powderkeg area.:rolleyes:

Was that on the old cheeseboard ? Anyway I hope everything goes well for him, on his mission. :greengrin I see Fatah and Hamas have put aside their differences and are to form an interim unity government, followed by a general election. Thoughts ?

[khib70]

Was that on the old cheeseboard ? Anyway I hope everything goes well for him, on his mission. :greengrin I see Fatah and Hamas have put aside their differences and are to form an interim unity government, followed by a general election. Thoughts ?
My thoughts are that anything which progresses the peace process is a very good thing indeed. Factionalism amongst Palestinians has a long history, and if they can finally overcome it, there is much more chance of meaningful negotiations towards a mutually acceptable two state solution. If Hamas can bring an element of honesty and transparency to the PA, and the PA can moderate Hamas's historical jihadism, there is a chance.

We also need a settlement freeze and a relaxation of the Gaza blockade, so that it covers only weapons and weapon-making materials, and particularly allows the free transport of building materials, since it is becoming clear that Gaza's problems mainly relate to infrastructure.

Hope your visit to Egypt went well!

[Sir David Gray]

Was that on the old cheeseboard ? Anyway I hope everything goes well for him, on his mission. :greengrin I see Fatah and Hamas have put aside their differences and are to form an interim unity government, followed by a general election. Thoughts ?


My thoughts are that anything which progresses the peace process is a very good thing indeed. Factionalism amongst Palestinians has a long history, and if they can finally overcome it, there is much more chance of meaningful negotiations towards a mutually acceptable two state solution. If Hamas can bring an element of honesty and transparency to the PA, and the PA can moderate Hamas's historical jihadism, there is a chance.

We also need a settlement freeze and a relaxation of the Gaza blockade, so that it covers only weapons and weapon-making materials, and particularly allows the free transport of building materials, since it is becoming clear that Gaza's problems mainly relate to infrastructure.

Hope your visit to Egypt went well!

My first post on here for a few months.

My thoughts on the agreement are that it will completely obliterate the so called "peace process", whatever that is.

Instead of it being something that will speed up the road to peace, it will do nothing except harm it.

Israel, quite rightly in my opinion, have clearly stated that they will not deal with a Palestinian government that has Hamas in it and I fully support that stance.

No country in the world would deal with an organisation whose number one aim in its charter is to wipe you off the face of the Earth, nor should they be expected to.

Now that they are effectively acting as one government, the government of Palestine was the only one in the world who publicly mourned the death of Osama Bin Laden. I think that speaks volumes about the kind of people that Israel will now be expected to do business with.

I also think the fact that this agreement was overseen by the new government in Egypt is also quite telling and it's something that I predicted at the time of Mubarak's departure.

Say what you like about him but Mubarak had no time for Hamas. This new government in Cairo seem to be a lot more accommodating towards them and it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that they have helped to broker this deal.

This is just the latest stumbling block in a long list of stumbling blocks in this protracted peace process.

I have said it all along whenever this kind of debate comes up on here and I will repeat it once again.

A two-state "solution" will never happen in this region and this latest news has just reaffirmed what I already knew.

[Betty Boop]

My first post on here for a few months.

My thoughts on the agreement are that it will completely obliterate the so called "peace process", whatever that is.

Instead of it being something that will speed up the road to peace, it will do nothing except harm it.

Israel, quite rightly in my opinion, have clearly stated that they will not deal with a Palestinian government that has Hamas in it and I fully support that stance.

No country in the world would deal with an organisation whose number one aim in its charter is to wipe you off the face of the Earth, nor should they be expected to.

Now that they are effectively acting as one government, the government of Palestine was the only one in the world who publicly mourned the death of Osama Bin Laden. I think that speaks volumes about the kind of people that Israel will now be expected to do business with.

I also think the fact that this agreement was overseen by the new government in Egypt is also quite telling and it's something that I predicted at the time of Mubarak's departure.

Say what you like about him but Mubarak had no time for Hamas. This new government in Cairo seem to be a lot more accommodating towards them and it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that they have helped to broker this deal.

This is just the latest stumbling block in a long list of stumbling blocks in this protracted peace process.

I have said it all along whenever this kind of debate comes up on here and I will repeat it once again.

A two-state "solution" will never happen in this region and this latest news has just reaffirmed what I already knew.



Why not ? Westminster deals with the Northern Ireland Assembly, including Sinn Fein, who are the second largest party. The Palestinians will elect their government in a General Election, it has nothing to do with Israel. Your point about Mubarak, I don't understand. Are you suggesting the Egyptian people should have stuck with Mubarak as he was more 'accomodating' to Israel ?

[Sir David Gray]

Why not ? Westminster deals with the Northern Ireland Assembly, including Sinn Fein, who are the second largest party. The Palestinians will elect their government in a General Election, it has nothing to do with Israel. Your point about Mubarak, I don't understand. Are you suggesting the Egyptian people should have stuck with Mubarak as he was more 'accomodating' to Israel ?

Hamas are quite open about their wish of seeing Israel wiped off the map. Why should the Israelis deal with such people?

The UK deals with the Northern Ireland Assembly but, essentially, you're still talking about the same country. If you're talking specifically about Sinn Fein, who are obviously dedicated to the reunification of the whole of Ireland, then yes Britain does deal with them but only because they have committed themselves to achieving their goals through a non-violent, political process.

Other groups who share similar goals, but who haven't given up violence, such as the various factions of the IRA such as the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA and the Provisional IRA as well as other groups such as the INLA and Oglaigh na hEireann are listed as terrorist organisations by the UK government and are subsequently not negotiated with.

If they somehow ended up being represented at official level on the Northern Ireland Assembly, in the same way that Hamas is now likely to be represented in the Palestinian Authority, then the United Kingdom would not be dealing with them.

I fully support Israel's stance on this matter and I just hope that they won't be bullied into changing their position by the US or other nations or organisations such as the EU.

Like I said in my last post, every nation in the world would act in exactly the same manner, if they were put in Israel's position.

It will be very interesting to see what happens now in terms of the aid that is provided to the Palestinian government, both by the European Union and the United Kingdom. I would hate to think that Britain would be effectively funding a group which the UK government itself continues to list as a terrorist organisation.

I can't see how Britain or the EU can continue to place Hamas on a list of banned terrorist groups, whilst providing aid to a government which includes Hamas.

Something's got to give.

I fully accept what you're saying about the Palestinians choosing their government, not Israel. That's fine and you're right to point this out but if Hamas are part of the Palestinian government, Israel are well within their rights to state that they won't deal with a group that is committed to their destruction.

In terms of my comments about Mubarak. I'm not suggesting that the Egyptian people should have done anything.

I just feel that the fact this agreement was put in place with the assistance of the new Egyptian government was quite telling. I said on another thread, at the time of Mubarak's departure, that whoever took over as the government of Egypt was unlikely to be as supportive of Israel as Mubarak had been over the past 30 years.

I'm not surprised in the slightest that this has turned out to be the case and it's what I've been saying all along about how this situation will turn out.

[Betty Boop]

14 killed as Israeli security forces open fire on protesters, at the border crossings with Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.

[hibsbollah]

[/QUOTE]

I'm not surprised in the slightest that this has turned out to be the case and it's what I've been saying all along about how this situation will turn out.[/QUOTE]

You truly are a soothsayer. Let us all know next time you have any premonitions about the middle east.

[Sir David Gray]

You truly are a soothsayer. Let us all know next time you have any premonitions about the middle east.

Have I not been consistent with what I have said about my beliefs on the Middle East and other related issues?

I am always completely open and honest about them because I believe it's an important subject and I'll not be apologising for anything that I've ever said on this debate.

I won't pretend to knowing when or how exactly things will play out because no-one knows that, but I do know that eventually Israel will be completely isolated and shunned by the rest of the world and I can see that happening all the time.

Just last week when Obama met Benjamin Netanyahu, the issue surrounding the borders of a future Palestinian state came up and Obama stated that the borders of Israel and Palestine should revert back to those that existed prior to the start of the Six-Day War in 1967.

A short while later, we had many countries from across the world (including our own William Hague) coming out in agreement with this statement. The only country which seemingly opposed these plans was, of course, Israel.

I don't anticipate Israel backing down over this, and I don't think they should either, particularly on issues such as Jerusalem and therefore I can only see Israel's relations with the rest of the world slowly deteriorating over time.

Yesterday Netanyahu was in the US speaking in Congress about not going back to pre-1967 borders and although he got, by and large, a very good reception, I don't think that will have gone down too well with Obama.

You come at this from a completely opposing viewpoint and I understand that and respect your position but I guess it's obviously just a case of wait and see what transpires.

You may not like what I say on this issue but I like to think that I deserve a wee bit more than the flippant remark that you've made in that post above.

[hibsbollah]

I dont think you deserve any more at all. Youve already said your views on Israel and the occupation are due to your apocalyptic biblical beliefs. Theres no analysis from you, no rationality, just parroting the same tired slogans. And the ridiculous assertion that what you have said would happen has happened, like you're some kind of oracle of wisdom, would be understandable if you could give some examples. Im happy to share different views with others who can back up what theyre saying with rational thought.

But theres no point debating with zealots, is there?

[khib70]

I dont think you deserve any more at all. Youve already said your views on Israel and the occupation are due to your apocalyptic biblical beliefs. Theres no analysis from you, no rationality, just parroting the same tired slogans. And the ridiculous assertion that what you have said would happen has happened, like you're some kind of oracle of wisdom, would be understandable if you could give some examples. Im happy to share different views with others who can back up what theyre saying with rational thought.

But theres no point debating with zealots, is there?

Which would currently rule out any notion of "negotiating" with Hamas, wouldn't it?

More seriously, I don't have any biblical views, apocalyptic or otherwise, and I rensent Christian fundamentalists hijacking the Jewish state for their "end of days" scenario.

But the fact is that Netanyahu is fundamentally wrong in the same way that Hamas is wrong. Ruling out any possibility of concession or compromise is the way to ensure a permanent state of war, which is in the interest of neither community. If Israel really wants peace, and I believe the majority of the population do, then it's pure head in the sand to suggest that you can maintain, far less expand, a raft of settlements (basically armed camps) on occupied territory. This is just as counterproductive as thinking that missiles and suicide bombs will get anyone to the negotiating table.

The only person likely to make any progress in getting Netanyahu to face reality is Obama, so engagement is vital. It's easy for Christians sitting safely in the UK and the US to urge Israel not to concede anything, because of some bit in the Book of Revelations. But the peace and safety of all of the people who actually live there, Jewish and Arab, depend on both sides reaching out and recognising each others' rights.

[(((Fergus)))]

But the fact is that Netanyahu is fundamentally wrong in the same way that Hamas is wrong. Ruling out any possibility of concession or compromise is the way to ensure a permanent state of war, which is in the interest of neither community. If Israel really wants peace, and I believe the majority of the population do, then it's pure head in the sand to suggest that you can maintain, far less expand, a raft of settlements (basically armed camps) on occupied territory. This is just as counterproductive as thinking that missiles and suicide bombs will get anyone to the negotiating table.

If the Arabs really want Jews as neighbours they won’t object to having Jews as neighbours.

Until and unless the Arabs finally accept the principle of Jewish sovereignty in 0.2% of the otherwise Arab-controlled Middle East, Israel would be foolish to weaken its territorial position. Doing so would only make the Arabs think Israel was weak - and we know where that leads.

Everyone wants a “solution” to this “problem” but maybe the status quo is the solution? Jews are always going to want to live in Israel and (mainly muslim) Arabs are always going to have a problem that. Either you persuade Jews to forget the land of Israel or you persuade the Arabs not to hate Jews. Both are age-old traditions, so unlikely.

[hibsbollah]

Which would currently rule out any notion of "negotiating" with Hamas, wouldn't it?

More seriously, I don't have any biblical views, apocalyptic or otherwise, and I rensent Christian fundamentalists hijacking the Jewish state for their "end of days" scenario.

But the fact is that Netanyahu is fundamentally wrong in the same way that Hamas is wrong. Ruling out any possibility of concession or compromise is the way to ensure a permanent state of war, which is in the interest of neither community. If Israel really wants peace, and I believe the majority of the population do, then it's pure head in the sand to suggest that you can maintain, far less expand, a raft of settlements (basically armed camps) on occupied territory. This is just as counterproductive as thinking that missiles and suicide bombs will get anyone to the negotiating table.

The only person likely to make any progress in getting Netanyahu to face reality is Obama, so engagement is vital. It's easy for Christians sitting safely in the UK and the US to urge Israel not to concede anything, because of some bit in the Book of Revelations. But the peace and safety of all of the people who actually live there, Jewish and Arab, depend on both sides reaching out and recognising each others' rights.

I wouldnt relish having to deal with Hamas in negotiations either (not that they ARE being negotiated with, except by the REAL international community). Israel can only look to home for the reasons why this might be; they caused Hamas to exist in the first place and allowed them to thrive both directly and indirectly by their policies in Gaza. Like Hezbollah, they wouldnt exist without an expansionist Israel.

I agree with the rest of your post.

[Betty Boop]

Today Egypt has permanently opened the Rafah crossing after four years. This is great news for the Palestinians, as it eases the blockade of Gaza from the Egyptian side, and allows them partial freedom of movement. :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Glenn Beck. Watch it to the end. Unbelieveable :-)

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fw atch%3Fv%3Dzj02pJKI9NI&v=zj02pJKI9NI&gl=GB

[Betty Boop]

Glenn Beck. Watch it to the end. Unbelieveable :-)

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fw atch%3Fv%3Dzj02pJKI9NI&v=zj02pJKI9NI&gl=GB

Can't access the link,can you give me the name of it, so I can watch ?

[hibsbollah]

Can't access the link,can you give me the name of it, so I can watch ?

Its called OneWorld - hilarious Glenn Beck meltdown about Freedom for Palestine single!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj02pJKI9NI
Does exactly what it says on the tin:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Its called OneWorld - hilarious Glenn Beck meltdown about Freedom for Palestine single!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj02pJKI9NI
Does exactly what it says on the tin:greengrin

:faf: Cheers for that ! :top marks

[lucky]

The Israelis has slaughtered more innocents this time in the Golan Heights killing at least 20 protesters. When will the west intervene and stop these crimes against humanity

[Betty Boop]

The Israelis has slaughtered more innocents this time in the Golan Heights killing at least 20 protesters. When will the west intervene and stop these crimes against humanity

20 dead and 300 injured. Mark Regev said the IDF showed great restraint.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/20116591150521659.html

[JimBHibees]

The Israelis has slaughtered more innocents this time in the Golan Heights killing at least 20 protesters. When will the west intervene and stop these crimes against humanity

Couldnt agree more. No doubt the Middle East peace envoy will at this moment be scribing a letter clearly outlining this is an atrocity and that individuals responsible will be charged and governments giving such commands will be dealt with by International law and charged and sanctioned accordingly.

[khib70]

The Israelis has slaughtered more innocents this time in the Golan Heights killing at least 20 protesters. When will the west intervene and stop these crimes against humanity


20 dead and 300 injured. Mark Regev said the IDF showed great restraint.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/20116591150521659.html

Aye, I see. We're uncritically accepting the Syrian Baathist regime's casualty figures, are we? Do we accept all their other figures?

And where are the howls of indignation over the hundreds, possibly thousands, killed by the Syrian regime on their own streets? The regime is trying to distract world opinion from it's own (Iranian assisted) atrocities, and by the looks of this thread, is succeeding.

There are no casualty figures which are in any way justifiable. But this was a deliberate mass incursion, repeated warnings were given and non-lethal force was used in the first instance.. Surely some blame attaches to the extremists who continue to use ordinary people as cannon fodder in their "holy" wars.

[hibsbollah]

20 dead and 300 injured. Mark Regev said the IDF showed great restraint.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/20116591150521659.html

I was watching the IDF spokeswoman with her perfect american english on the news yesterday. They are masters of the propaganda battle; after the BBC report you almost felt sorry for the poor soldiers with their assault rifles and attack helicopters and their 'admirable restraint'.

The international community has no credibility talking about human rights or the rule of law anywhere in the world until it deals with Israels repeated murdering of civilians.

[Betty Boop]

Aye, I see. We're uncritically accepting the Syrian Baathist regime's casualty figures, are we? Do we accept all their other figures?

And where are the howls of indignation over the hundreds, possibly thousands, killed by the Syrian regime on their own streets? The regime is trying to distract world opinion from it's own (Iranian assisted) atrocities, and by the looks of this thread, is succeeding.

There are no casualty figures which are in any way justifiable. But this was a deliberate mass incursion, repeated warnings were given and non-lethal force was used in the first instance.. Surely some blame attaches to the extremists who continue to use ordinary people as cannon fodder in their "holy" wars.

There is no excusing the Syrian regime firing on their own people, but surely you would'nt expect the only democracy in the Middle East to open fire on unarmed civilians ?

[khib70]

There is no excusing the Syrian regime firing on their own people, but surely you would'nt expect the only democracy in the Middle East to open fire on unarmed civilians ?
No, I wouldn't. But I would expect them to defend their borders, as they have every right to do.

I just object to everyone taking as gospel the Syrian claims over the number killed and wounded because it suits their political agenda. There is evidence that at least some of the protesters were actually paid to attend by Hizbollah, and that the casualty figures are not verified by anyone other than Assad's cronies. See this report in the Guardian:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/05/israel-syria-violence-border-protest

And to be fair, when I point out the deafening silence on here regarding the repressions of the Arab Spring, I'm aware of your consistent and principled posting in support of the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. It just seems to me that this board is beginning to look like a mirror of the UN (so-called) Human Rights Commission, which seems to believe that only Israelis are breaching human rights worldwide. Mind you, since that august body was once chaired by none other than Gadaffi's Libya, we shouldn't be too surprised.

[hibsbollah]

Bashing the UN human rights council has been all the rage since they decided not to follow the usual US dictats and not constantly harangue Castro's Cuba. Cuba, although not perfect, has a far better record on human rights than many US client states and the UNHRC were reflecting that view.

Unfortunately you cant get away with independent thought when dealing with george dubya and the US hasnt worked with them ever since. Bodies like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have been completely even handed and non partisan in criticising governments including both Syria and Israel (and the US for executing 17 year olds and the mentally ill). I prefer to go there for an independent assessment. CIA.org is good too :-)

[khib70]

Bashing the UN human rights council has been all the rage since they decided not to follow the usual US dictats and not constantly harangue Castro's Cuba. Cuba, although not perfect, has a far better record on human rights than many US client states and the UNHRC were reflecting that view.

Unfortunately you cant get away with independent thought when dealing with george dubya and the US hasnt worked with them ever since. Bodies like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have been completely even handed and non partisan in criticising governments including both Syria and Israel (and the US for executing 17 year olds and the mentally ill). I prefer to go there for an independent assessment. CIA.org is good too :-)
First of all, the US has fully participated in the UNHRC since the Obama administration took over.

Cuba is a bit of a red herring anyway. Although both HRW and Amnesty would agree with you that it's "not perfect". Still, doesn't stop people who sound off about Palestine taking their holidays there.:rolleyes:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/06/01/cuba-stop-imprisoning-peaceful-dissidents

And, in the light of the howls of outrage over the alleged twenty or so deaths on the Golan - there being no hard evidence according to the Guardian report linked in my last post that anyone died at all, and that many of the injuries were caused by protestors' petrol bombs igniting Syrian anti-tank mines - why the deafening silence over this?

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=19503

I know Israel isn't perfect either, and have frequently said so. Exapnsionism and bullying are not part of the model of a Jewish (or any other kind of) state.

I know that people like yourself, BB and LH will readily and truthfully state when pushed that some terrible things are going on in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, Sudan etc. But the disproportionate levels of outrage on the board in general smell of double standards to me.

[(((Fergus)))]

Couple of points about the attempted Golan incursion:

1) To reach the border these people had to pass a) the Syrian army and b) the UN Disengagement Observer Force. Why did neither of these forces prevent this provocation? Why might one of them have encouraged it?

2) Have you seen any camera phone footage from the potential infiltrators? I haven't yet and in all the pictures I've seen so far I couldn't identify anyone holding a camera or phone. If in fact no one brought a camera I wonder why that would be given that they are so ubiquitous in other protests.

Betty to call these people "unarmed civilians" is a little bit coy - they were attempted infiltrators and every country in the world would open fire on clowns like these, most would shoot to kill.

BTW have these Naksa casualties been mentioned yet in the BBC/Guardian, etc.:


Maan:

Fourteen Palestinian refugees were reported killed and another 43 injured on Monday, a report from the Palestinian government's WAFA news said.

The victims were part of a massive group in Al-Yarmok, an unofficial Palestinian refugee camp in the Syrian capital of Damascus, mourning the death of between 10-23 Palestinians by Israeli fire on the Golan Heights ceasefire line the day before.

Angered over the failure of camp leaders to organize demonstrations marking the Naksa, the anniversary of Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights, an estimated 100,000 mourners were said to have attacked the headquarters of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.

Militants with the PFLP-GC reportedly opened fire on the group, who were taken to a local camp hospital for treatment. The report cited hospital staff saying 14 were pronounced dead.

During the clash, mourners reportedly set fire into the PFLP-GC headquarters, and condemned the group for its use of weapons against the crowd.


Palestine Press Agency mentions that the PFLP-GC is close to the Syrian leadership, which explains why a terrorist group is running a "refugee" camp.


Sources said that the demonstrators chanted against [PFLP-GC leader] Ahmad Jibril, Khaled Mashaal and other political leaders based in Damascus, accusing them of being agents of the Syrian regime.

[hibsbollah]

"every country in the world would open fire on clowns like these, most would shoot to kill".


Fergus thats total nonsense. The list of countries that use live rounds on demonstrators is, thankfully, a small one. Burma, Iran, Israel, Syria, the usual basketcases.

[Betty Boop]

Couple of points about the attempted Golan incursion:

1) To reach the border these people had to pass a) the Syrian army and b) the UN Disengagement Observer Force. Why did neither of these forces prevent this provocation? Why might one of them have encouraged it?

2) Have you seen any camera phone footage from the potential infiltrators? I haven't yet and in all the pictures I've seen so far I couldn't identify anyone holding a camera or phone. If in fact no one brought a camera I wonder why that would be given that they are so ubiquitous in other protests.

Betty to call these people "unarmed civilians" is a little bit coy - they were attempted infiltrators and every country in the world would open fire on clowns like these, most would shoot to kill.

BTW have these Naksa casualties been mentioned yet in the BBC/Guardian, etc.:



Palestine Press Agency mentions that the PFLP-GC is close to the Syrian leadership, which explains why a terrorist group is running a "refugee" camp.

There is plenty of footage on Al Jazeera and RT, the 'attempted infiltrators' did not attempt to break through the fence, they lobbed a few stones and some rubbish, hardly worthy of being shot dead. The Golan Heights is occupied territory, why should they not protest ? It will be interesting to see how Israel deals with peaceful protests now in light of the Arab Spring, or will the world continue to turn a blind eye. There wasn't any footage on the BBC, of Israel shooting these unarmed civilians in Gaza either on May 15th .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQf0DE6RUfo

[hibsbollah]

BBCs Kevin Connolly was at the syrian border shootings, reported on radio4 From Our Own Correspondent this morning. There were dead and injured civilians according to Connolly, numbers impossible to know as clearly Syria nor Israel have good records for honesty in this respect. Should be svailable on iplayer/listen again.

[LiverpoolHibs]

If the Arabs really want Jews as neighbours they won’t object to having Jews as neighbours.

Until and unless the Arabs finally accept the principle of Jewish sovereignty in 0.2% of the otherwise Arab-controlled Middle East, Israel would be foolish to weaken its territorial position. Doing so would only make the Arabs think Israel was weak - and we know where that leads.

Everyone wants a “solution” to this “problem” but maybe the status quo is the solution? Jews are always going to want to live in Israel and (mainly muslim) Arabs are always going to have a problem that. Either you persuade Jews to forget the land of Israel or you persuade the Arabs not to hate Jews. Both are age-old traditions, so unlikely.

Oh Christ, he just gets stupider and more unpleasant.


No, I wouldn't. But I would expect them to defend their borders, as they have every right to do.

I just object to everyone taking as gospel the Syrian claims over the number killed and wounded because it suits their political agenda. There is evidence that at least some of the protesters were actually paid to attend by Hizbollah, and that the casualty figures are not verified by anyone other than Assad's cronies. See this report in the Guardian:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/05/israel-syria-violence-border-protest

And to be fair, when I point out the deafening silence on here regarding the repressions of the Arab Spring, I'm aware of your consistent and principled posting in support of the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. It just seems to me that this board is beginning to look like a mirror of the UN (so-called) Human Rights Commission, which seems to believe that only Israelis are breaching human rights worldwide. Mind you, since that august body was once chaired by none other than Gadaffi's Libya, we shouldn't be too surprised.

I'm fairly sure there is a rather lengthy thread on the topic of the Arabic Revolutions and the repressions that were (and are) their corollary. I would imagine that the lack of posts on the topic - supposing that this is actually the case - is merely reflective of the trouble people are having in getting their heads around what is actually happening in the region.

Furthermore, the major difference is that the 'international community' do not regularly offer apologias for the brutality of the Assad regime and are not directly and actively involved in enabling such atrocities.

And incidentally, have you started a thread on the repression of the revolts in Syria? If not, it can only be because you aren't really bothered by Ba'athist iniquity. Erm, that's right isn't it?

[--------]

Oh Christ, he just gets stupider and more unpleasant.

:faf:

I'm fairly sure there is a rather lengthy thread on the topic of the Arabic Revolutions and the repressions that were (and are) their corollary. I would imagine that the lack of posts on the topic - supposing that this is actually the case - is merely reflective of the trouble people are having in getting their heads around what is actually happening in the region.

Furthermore, the major difference is that the 'international community' do not regularly offer apologias for the brutality of the Assad regime and are not directly and actively involved in enabling such atrocities.

And incidentally, have you started a thread on the repression of the revolts in Syria? If not, it can only be because you aren't really bothered by Ba'athist iniquity. Erm, that's right isn't it?


I was watching an episode of "Nazi Hunters" on Yesterday last night - the one about the Jewish "Avengers". Right after the War these guys wanted to kill millions of Germans (entirely at random) "just to let them know what it felt like". The idea they had was to poison the water supplies.

They wanted Ben-Gurion's support, but he sent them packing; a lot of them ended up in Mossad apparently and carried out a number of killings and kidnappings as Mossad agents.

My reading was that the Final Solution in their minds had become an excuse and justification for any and every crime that could be presented as revenge for what the Nazis did.

Old men consumed by hatred and bitterness, voicing no regrets other than that they hadn't managed to kill 6 million Germans (any Germans) in retribution for the Holocaust. Scary.

[khib70]

Oh Christ, he just gets stupider and more unpleasant.



I'm fairly sure there is a rather lengthy thread on the topic of the Arabic Revolutions and the repressions that were (and are) their corollary. I would imagine that the lack of posts on the topic - supposing that this is actually the case - is merely reflective of the trouble people are having in getting their heads around what is actually happening in the region.

Furthermore, the major difference is that the 'international community' do not regularly offer apologias for the brutality of the Assad regime and are not directly and actively involved in enabling such atrocities.

And incidentally, have you started a thread on the repression of the revolts in Syria? If not, it can only be because you aren't really bothered by Ba'athist iniquity. Erm, that's right isn't it?
Ah, you're back. The problem I have is the howls of outrage over an incident where the only claims of any fatalities come from the Syrian government. The same one that claims 4,000 refugees were just people who simultaneously felt the need to visit their grannies. To rather less outrage, Syrian government thugs have killed 1200 people over the last month, according to Amnesty International.

Why should I start a thread on Syria? It would only be hijacked by the anti-Israel cabal within half a dozen posts.

And it's a bit disappointing that your only response to Fergus these days appears to be name-calling.

[hibsbollah]

the only claims of any fatalities come from the Syrian government..

...and the BBC.

I think you're wrong about the hypothetical Syria thread. As LH rightly says, the Arab Spring is so amorphous, unpredictable and downright weird that its difficult to say anything informed about it. (although we had quite a good Egypt thread a while back IIRC).

[LiverpoolHibs]

Ah, you're back. The problem I have is the howls of outrage over an incident where the only claims of any fatalities come from the Syrian government. The same one that claims 4,000 refugees were just people who simultaneously felt the need to visit their grannies. To rather less outrage, Syrian government thugs have killed 1200 people over the last month, according to Amnesty International.

And the BBC (as hibsbollah says) and Ha'aretz...


Why should I start a thread on Syria? It would only be hijacked by the anti-Israel cabal within half a dozen posts.

Why do you think that? Was the thread on Tunisia and Egypt 'hijacked' by the dastardly cabal? Or did it, in fact, make it to eleven pages of on-topic and largely well-intentioned discussion?


And it's a bit disappointing that your only response to Fergus these days appears to be name-calling.

Fergus is a racist fool and has absolutely nothing worthwhile to add to any debate on the subject. I see no problem in addressing him as such.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This is fantastic and inspirational. A transcript of a statement read by Bassem Tamimi, leader of the Nabi Salih protests against settler land theft, to an Israeli military court.

Your Honor,

I hold this speech out of belief in peace, justice, freedom, the right to live in dignity, and out of respect for free thought in the absence of Just Laws.

Every time I am called to appear before your courts, I become nervous and afraid. Eighteen years ago, my sister was killed in a courtroom such as this, by a staff member. In my lifetime, I have been nine times imprisoned for an overall of almost 3 years, though I was never charged or convicted. During my imprisonment, I was paralyzed as a result of torture by your investigators. My wife was detained, my children were wounded, my land was stolen by settlers, and now my house is slated for demolition.

I was born at the same time as the Occupation and have been living under its inherent inhumanity, inequality, racism and lack of freedom ever since. Yet, despite all this, my belief in human values and the need for peace in this land have never been shaken. Suffering and oppression did not fill my heart with hatred for anyone, nor did they kindle feelings of revenge. To the contrary, they reinforced my belief in peace and national standing as an adequate response to the inhumanity of Occupation.

International law guarantees the right of occupied people to resist Occupation. In practicing my right, I have called for and organized peaceful popular demonstrations against the Occupation, settler attacks and the theft of more than half of the land of my village, Nabi Saleh, where the graves of my ancestors have lain since time immemorial.

I organized these peaceful demonstrations in order to defend our land and our people. I do not know if my actions violate your Occupation laws. As far as I am concerned, these laws do not apply to me and are devoid of meaning. Having been enacted by Occupation authorities, I reject them and cannot recognize their validity.

Despite claiming to be the only democracy in the Middle East you are trying me under military laws which lack any legitimacy; laws that are enacted by authorities that I have not elected and do not represent me. I am accused of organizing peaceful civil demonstrations that have no military aspects and are legal under international law.

We have the right to express our rejection of Occupation in all of its forms; to defend our freedom and dignity as a people and to seek justice and peace in our land in order to protect our children and secure their future.

The civil nature of our actions is the light that will overcome the darkness of the Occupation, bringing a dawn of freedom that will warm the cold wrists in chains, sweep despair from the soul and end decades of oppression.

These actions are what will expose the true face of the Occupation, where soldiers point their guns at a woman walking to her fields or at checkpoints; at a child who wants to drink from the sweet water of his ancestors’ fabled spring; against an old man who wants to sit in the shade of an olive tree, once mother to him, now burnt by settlers.

We have exhausted all possible actions to stop attacks by settlers, who refuse to adhere to your courts’ decisions, which time and again have confirmed that we are the owners of the land, ordering the removal of the fence erected by them.

Each time we tried to approach our land, implementing these decisions, we were attacked by settlers, who prevented us from reaching it as if it were their own.

Our demonstrations are in protest of injustice. We work hand in hand with Israeli and international activists who believe, like us, that had it not been for the Occupation, we could all live in peace on this land. I do not know which laws are upheld by generals who are inhibited by fear and insecurity, nor do I know their thoughts on the civil resistance of women, children and old men who carry hope and olive branches.

But I know what justice and reason are. Land theft and tree-burning is unjust. Violent repression of our demonstrations and protests and your detention camps are not evidence of the illegality of our actions. It is unfair to be tried under a law forced upon us. I know that I have rights and my actions are just.

The military prosecutor accuses me of inciting the protesters to throw stones at the soldiers. This is not true. What incites protesters to throw stones is the sound of bullets, the Occupation’s bulldozers as they destroy the land, the smell of teargas and the smoke coming from burnt houses. I did not incite anyone to throw stones, but I am not responsible for the security of your soldiers who invade my village and attack my people with all the weapons of death and the equipment of terror.

These demonstrations that I organize have had a positive influence over my beliefs; they allowed me to see people from the other side who believe in peace and share my struggle for freedom. Those freedom fighters have rid their conscious from the Occupation and put their hands in ours in peaceful demonstrations against our common enemy, the Occupation. They have become friends, sisters and brothers. We fight together for a better future for our children and theirs.

If released by the judge will I be convinced thereby that justice still prevails in your courts? Regardless of how just or unjust this ruling will be, and despite all your racist and inhumane practices and Occupation, we will continue to believe in peace, justice and human values. We will still raise our children to love; love the land and the people without discrimination of race, religion or ethnicity; embodying thus the message of the Messenger of Peace, Jesus Christ, who urged us to “love our enemy.” With love and justice, we make peace and build the future.

[khib70]

This is fantastic and inspirational. A transcript of a statement read by Bassem Tamimi, leader of the Nabi Salih protests against settler land theft, to an Israeli military court.

Can't disagree with you there. A courageous statement which manages to be both heartfelt and impassioned and thoroughly realistic. We could make so much progress if there were more people like him on both sides of the divide.

On the subject of the Arab Spring - I don't doubt that people are confused. It must be confusing when the main bankrollers of Hamas and Hizbollah (Iran and Syria) are being exposed daily as murderous dictatorships. And when people like Nasrallah are acting as cheerleaders for them.

Therein lies the problem. I'm not accusing any particular individuals, but supporters of the Palestinian cause in general seem to me to have for many years adopted the "our son of a bitch" attitude towards the likes of Syria and Iran. Ironically, this is the very same attitude various US administrations have used to justify their support of equally murderous regimes in Central America and elsewhere.

At a slight tangent, I've just finished reading Peter Maass's book "Love Thy Neighbour - A Story of War". It's a powerful and emotional account of the war in the former Yugoslavia. I'd recommend it to you and anyone else, mainly because it is incredibly good, but also as a realistic picture of what the UN really is and does, and of what the "international community" has achieved in terms of "justice"

Oh, and by the way, I'm not Fergus's lawyer. And I do disagree with a fair bit of what he says sometimes. He does, however, represent a legitimate strand of opinion on this issue.I just personally feel that your reaction to him, and refusal to engage is a bit OTT, and a bit unworthy of you.

[Sir David Gray]

I dont think you deserve any more at all. Youve already said your views on Israel and the occupation are due to your apocalyptic biblical beliefs. Theres no analysis from you, no rationality, just parroting the same tired slogans. And the ridiculous assertion that what you have said would happen has happened, like you're some kind of oracle of wisdom, would be understandable if you could give some examples. Im happy to share different views with others who can back up what theyre saying with rational thought.

But theres no point debating with zealots, is there?

OK, how about this?

I've said all along that the so called peace process in this region will never materialise and that the allies of Israel would begin to turn against them.

In the past couple of years we've seen the following;

The USA condemn Israel in the strongest terms that it has ever done in its entire 63 year modern history.

A right wing government come into power in Israel which is reluctant to agree to international demands for Israel to give up land, including part of its capital city etc.

Fatah and Hamas do a deal that allows the latter to become part of the national government, a move which will bring the Palestinian Authority into direct conflict with the Israelis and leave the peace talks in tatters.

The most important negotiator in the region and key ally of Israel, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, is ousted from power and is replaced by a military regime which almost immediately sets about hosting talks between Fatah and Hamas and helps to hammer out the aforementioned deal.

All of this is fact and doesn't require any "apocalyptic biblical belief" to see that happening.

You're right to say that most of my opinions on the Middle East conflict are based primarily on religious views but I believe that I have provided plenty of fact-based evidence, on various occasions, for why I believe the things I do on this issue.

Personally I don't understand how people can't see all of these things, that I have mentioned above, happening. It's just something that seems quite obvious to me.

My wider views on Israel are only loosely based on religious belief and they are views which are shared by many people who have no faith.

I view Israel as being one of the UK's allies and I have no time for the governments in countries such as Syria and Iran and I believe that it is important to support Israel in their fight against governments like this who are committed to Israel's destruction and also against Islamic terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which these countries help to finance.

Israel has to deal with so much from so many angles and it is expected to put up with situations that no other country in the world would accept. As soon as it shows any sign of defending itself, its sovereignty and its borders, the world's media is all over it and analysing every action with a fine-toothed comb.

You might not agree with the last part of what I have written but is that not "rational debate"?

I have said all this many times before but I'm happy to provide it all again.

[Betty Boop]

OK, how about this?

I've said all along that the so called peace process in this region will never materialise and that the allies of Israel would begin to turn against them.

In the past couple of years we've seen the following;

The USA condemn Israel in the strongest terms that it has ever done in its entire 63 year modern history.

A right wing government come into power in Israel which is reluctant to agree to international demands for Israel to give up land, including part of its capital city etc.

Fatah and Hamas do a deal that allows the latter to become part of the national government, a move which will bring the Palestinian Authority into direct conflict with the Israelis and leave the peace talks in tatters.

The most important negotiator in the region and key ally of Israel, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, is ousted from power and is replaced by a military regime which almost immediately sets about hosting talks between Fatah and Hamas and helps to hammer out the aforementioned deal.

All of this is fact and doesn't require any "apocalyptic biblical belief" to see that happening.

You're right to say that most of my opinions on the Middle East conflict are based primarily on religious views but I believe that I have provided plenty of fact-based evidence, on various occasions, for why I believe the things I do on this issue.

Personally I don't understand how people can't see all of these things, that I have mentioned above, happening. It's just something that seems quite obvious to me.

My wider views on Israel are only loosely based on religious belief and they are views which are shared by many people who have no faith.

I view Israel as being one of the UK's allies and I have no time for the governments in countries such as Syria and Iran and I believe that it is important to support Israel in their fight against governments like this who are committed to Israel's destruction and also against Islamic terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which these countries help to finance.

Israel has to deal with so much from so many angles and it is expected to put up with situations that no other country in the world would accept. As soon as it shows any sign of defending itself, its sovereignty and its borders, the world's media is all over it and analysing every action with a fine-toothed comb.

You might not agree with the last part of what I have written but is that not "rational debate"?

I have said all this many times before but I'm happy to provide it all again.

Really ? When was this ? :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Can't disagree with you there. A courageous statement which manages to be both heartfelt and impassioned and thoroughly realistic. We could make so much progress if there were more people like him on both sides of the divide.

I think you're getting soft, khib!


On the subject of the Arab Spring - I don't doubt that people are confused. It must be confusing when the main bankrollers of Hamas and Hizbollah (Iran and Syria) are being exposed daily as murderous dictatorships. And when people like Nasrallah are acting as cheerleaders for them.

Who would that be confusing for? Who are the Assadists and Ahmadinejadites on here who have been keeping such a low profile that I've missed them entirely?


Therein lies the problem. I'm not accusing any particular individuals, but supporters of the Palestinian cause in general seem to me to have for many years adopted the "our son of a bitch" attitude towards the likes of Syria and Iran. Ironically, this is the very same attitude various US administrations have used to justify their support of equally murderous regimes in Central America and elsewhere.

But that's not true, I read a fairly large number of blogs, sites and publications concerning the Palestinian struggle and off the top of my head I can think of one that has taken an editorial line against the Iranian and Syrian opposition movements (and despite what you seem to think these congruent struggles have been, and are, covered extensively on such sites). I'm not saying there are not people who are supportive of the Palestinian cause and supportive of the Iranian theocracy and/or the Syrian regime - of course there are but that's just indicative of people being able to be right about one thing and wrong about something else. Which shouldn't be a revelation to anyone.

Have you been out on any protests in support of the revolutions in the region this year? Because Palestinian solidarity groups have been on just about every single one.


At a slight tangent, I've just finished reading Peter Maass's book "Love Thy Neighbour - A Story of War". It's a powerful and emotional account of the war in the former Yugoslavia. I'd recommend it to you and anyone else, mainly because it is incredibly good, but also as a realistic picture of what the UN really is and does, and of what the "international community" has achieved in terms of "justice"

Oh, and by the way, I'm not Fergus's lawyer. And I do disagree with a fair bit of what he says sometimes. He does, however, represent a legitimate strand of opinion on this issue.I just personally feel that your reaction to him, and refusal to engage is a bit OTT, and a bit unworthy of you.

There's nothing to engage with. Arguing with someone who thinks the solution to the conflict is that 'Arabs stop objecting to having Jews as neighbours' is exactly as pointless as arguing about the conflict with our delightful End Timer above. Sisyphean doesn't cover it...

[(((Fergus)))]

To be fair the Arabs don't object to having Jews as neighbours per se, they merely object to them having any form of perceived superiority, especially sovereignty. Considering the mess Arabs make when they are in charge, this is not only unfair (why should muslims alone rule the entire middle east?), it is cutting off the nose to spite the face. What the young people of the Arab world are out on the streets demanding are the things that Arabs, Jews and all the others in Israel already have, namely freedom of expression and economic prosperity. These young Arabs want more Israels, not less.

BTW I thought some people might like to see this video about the other side of the Middle East refugee story. The side that never gets talked about because people decided to solve it and the refugees were not strung along ad infinitum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nwI2hzPjrA Part 1 of I think 5

[LiverpoolHibs]

See what I mean?

[Betty Boop]

See what I mean?

Aye, right out of the hasbara handbook.

[Sir David Gray]

Really ? When was this ? :confused:

Apologies in the delay in replying to this, I've been away on holiday over the past couple of weeks.

I have seen the US criticise Israel more and more over the past couple of years on various points.

The Obama administration has condemned Israel's continued building of settlements in Judea and Samaria, more so than any other American regime that I am aware of.

The Americans have also strongly criticised Israel for its settlement building in the east of Jerusalem.

Obama has also called on Netanyahu to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

Obama made a speech a couple of months ago, calling for Israel to revert back to the borders it had prior to the Six Day War in 1967. This was a very strong and clear message to Israel and something that we have not heard from an American President for some time.

On the face of it, you might be forgiven for thinking that nothing's changed in the relationship between the US and Israel. Publicly, at least, Obama and Netanyahu will present a strong bond but I don't think there is really any love lost.

Compared with many other countries, America is still very close to Israel and whilst I don't see that relationship breaking down completely any time soon, it is clear that there has been a deterioration in the relations between the two nations since their respective governments took charge.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Apologies in the delay in replying to this, I've been away on holiday over the past couple of weeks.

I have seen the US criticise Israel more and more over the past couple of years on various points.

The Obama administration has condemned Israel's continued building of illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank, more so than any other American regime that I am aware of.

The Americans have also strongly criticised Israel for its illegal settlement building in Occupied East Jerusalem.

Obama has also called on Netanyahu to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

I thought I'd fix a couple of things for you there, FH. I wouldn't want it to look like you have an absolute disregard for international law or the rights of a national group.


Obama made a speech a couple of months ago, calling for Israel to revert back to the borders it had prior to the Six Day War in 1967. This was a very strong and clear message to Israel and something that we have not heard from an American President for some time.

Dearest FH, I realise reality isn't your strongest suit but how many American Presidents were there in between Bush the Younger and Obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W73v4p6Yyg

Every single American administration since Nixon has had as it stated policy negotiations based on the 1967 borders involving land swaps to deal with the 'facts on the ground'.

[Betty Boop]

Documentary- Occupation 101, a history of the conflict.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28522.htm

[Betty Boop]

The IDF is training and arming settlers with stun grenades and tear gas, 'in case' of disorder, ahead of the UN vote for Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu has lost the plot !

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-training-israeli-settlers-ahead-of-mass-disorder-expected-in-september-1.381421

[khib70]

UN report on the Gaza Flotilla incident

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-report-idf-soldiers-acted-in-self-defense-but-used-excessive-force-1.382001

A lot for both sides of the argument to chew on here. Essentially saying that the IDF's reaction was excessive and their treatment of captives abusive. That seems a reasonable conclusion to me..

Highly significantly, though, "The report harshly criticizes the flotilla organizers, stating "they acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade". It added that ” there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH.”

And even more significantly "The Palmer report determined that the Israeli naval blockade on the Gaza Strip is legal, as "Israel faces a security threat from violent groups in Gaza." One in the eye for those who, on here and elsewhere, have been extravagantly playing the "international law" card.

It's refreshing to see a UN report recognising that Israel has a right to defend itself against organised violent attacks. It's also good to see it stated that said right does not extend to unlimited violence.

[khib70]

The IDF is training and arming settlers with stun grenades and tear gas, 'in case' of disorder, ahead of the UN vote for Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu has lost the plot !

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-training-israeli-settlers-ahead-of-mass-disorder-expected-in-september-1.381421
Lost it a long time ago, BB.

Bit superfluous since the settlers tend to be armed to the teeth already, and very trigger-happy. Maybe issuing stun grenades and tear gas will prevent them from killing anyone, but I doubt if that's Netanyahu's intention in handing them out.

And the group most likely to cause "disorder" over the UN vote is surely the settlers themselves?

[Betty Boop]

UN report on the Gaza Flotilla incident

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-report-idf-soldiers-acted-in-self-defense-but-used-excessive-force-1.382001

A lot for both sides of the argument to chew on here. Essentially saying that the IDF's reaction was excessive and their treatment of captives abusive. That seems a reasonable conclusion to me..

Highly significantly, though, "The report harshly criticizes the flotilla organizers, stating "they acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade". It added that ” there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH.”

And even more significantly "The Palmer report determined that the Israeli naval blockade on the Gaza Strip is legal, as "Israel faces a security threat from violent groups in Gaza." One in the eye for those who, on here and elsewhere, have been extravagantly playing the "international law" card.

It's refreshing to see a UN report recognising that Israel has a right to defend itself against organised violent attacks. It's also good to see it stated that said right does not extend to unlimited violence.

Most of the deceased were shot multiple times in the back, or at close range, and has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel. I wonder why ? :rolleyes:

[Betty Boop]

Israeli Ambassador has now been expelled from Turkey.

[Betty Boop]

Palestine has been granted full UNESCO membership. :flag:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29571.htm


The US promptly cuts off UNESCO funding.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29572.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEGuvuSe0q4&feature=youtu.be

[Betty Boop]

The Palestinian Freedom Riders.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?tta

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29748.htm

[Sir David Gray]

Four rockets are fired across the border from Lebanon into Israel, two buildings damaged.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15932405

Just thought I would add some balance into this "Middle East watch" thread.

:aok:

[Betty Boop]

Netanyahu apologises to Turkey for the deaths of nine on the Mavi Marmara.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/22/israel-apologises-turkey-gaza-flotilla-deaths

[JimBHibees]

Four rockets are fired across the border from Lebanon into Israel, two buildings damaged.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15932405

Just thought I would add some balance into this "Middle East watch" thread.

:aok:

It would take a lot more than that for balance to be achieved in that conflict.

[easty]

It would take a lot more than that for balance to be achieved in that conflict.

The 'latest reply to a post award 2013' goes to you JimB!

[hibsbollah]

Storyville, The Law in these Parts, an Israeli film about the justice system in the West Bank, has just finished on BBC4 now, and will be on the iplayer. A truly outstanding film.

[Betty Boop]

https://www.facebook.com/IsraelMFA/videos/10154038006641317/

[One Day Soon]

Whatever happened to Liverpool Hibs?

[Betty Boop]

Whatever happened to Liverpool Hibs?



A big miss on here .:agree: