What Have Those Israeli Scamps Been Up to Now?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Caught a snippet of the news this morning. Am I right in saying that Israeli agents boarded the ship of a foreign power in International waters today, and then started a gun fight?

That can't be right can it?

[(((Fergus)))]

Clearest video of the actual boarding I've seen so far is this one

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

[magpie1892]

Clearest video of the actual boarding I've seen so far is this one

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

Piracy and murder on the high seas. The wee toerags!

'They [crew members on board the flotilla's ships] planned this attack,' said an Israeli military spokeswoman.

You have to love the irony of claiming their commandos were ambushed while hijacking a ship in international waters.

[Jack]

“They were armed” said an Israeli spokesperson as they showed a video of an iron bar, that could have been off anything, and a rather forlorn looking catapult.

That’s from the Israelis armed with at least one gun ship and helicopters with navy seals on board; armed to the teeth with every imaginable weapon that could be carried by hand.

In international waters.

Piracy.

[LiverpoolHibs]

“They were armed” said an Israeli spokesperson as they showed a video of an iron bar, that could have been off anything, and a rather forlorn looking catapult.

That’s from the Israelis armed with at least one gun ship and helicopters with navy seals on board; armed to the teeth with every imaginable weapon that could be carried by hand.

In international waters.

Piracy.

Not only that, but they've actually declared war on NATO.

A Turkish flagged vessel in international waters is legally an appendage of the Turkish state. They attacked it, Turkey is in NATO, article 5 of the NATO charter states that an attack on one of its members is an attack on all of its members.

I can only assume airstrikes will be hitting Tel Aviv any minute.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Not only that, but they've actually declared war on NATO.

A Turkish flagged vessel in international waters is legally an appendage of the Turkish state. They attacked it, Turkey is in NATO, article 5 of the NATO charter states that an attack on one of its members is an attack on all of its members.

I can only assume airstrikes will be hitting Tel Aviv any minute.

No doubt our Foreign Secretary is telling them this in no uncertain terms, as we speak. Otherwise the opposition will have a field day at the expense of a government that allows Israel to attack UK citizens on legitimate business.

It's not as if they are using forged passports or anything.

[IndieHibby]

mmmmm..... One has to seriously question the mentality of those on board that ship.

On approaching their desired port, they are told by the IDF that it is blockaded (which they knew anyway) and were given instructions on how to co-operate with the naval blockade.

Option 1: "We have made our point, so now it is time to co-operate with the IDF"
Option 2: "**** 'em anyway, what are they going to do, huh?"

Surprisingly, they went for Option 2. Wouldn't have been my choice, but then what do I know?

Having taken Option 2, they are now attempting to break a military blockade in one of the world's most intractable trouble-spots.

Got to admire their balls, haven't you? But their brains really do let them down over their next choice:

Option 1: "Allow the heavily armed Commandos to board the ship and, well, do what they like. I mean what choice do we have? It's not like we can take them on, is it?.......Oh wait, there is another way!! -

Option 2: "We could beat the **** out of them with metal poles and stuff we have lying around. They are bound to give up and go home, allowing us free passage to give succour to their enemy, aren't they?"

Well, we all know what choice they made. It resulted in quite a few of them dying.

Words fail me when trying to express the downright stupidity of their actions.

But on the other hand, the IDF were heavy handed weren't they? I mean they didn't have to board the ship. Oh wait, that is exactly how you stop a ship, without sinking it. Balls.

OK, they didn't have to kill people, right?

Well, watching that video, if I was one of those Commandos getting my head caved in, I sure as hell would have done anything to stop it.

[IndieHibby]

Not only that, but they've actually declared war on NATO.

A Turkish flagged vessel in international waters is legally an appendage of the Turkish state. They attacked it, Turkey is in NATO, article 5 of the NATO charter states that an attack on one of its members is an attack on all of its members.

I can only assume airstrikes will be hitting Tel Aviv any minute.

Have you left behind your razor-sharp accurate commentary... just for this post?

Do you seriously think that if a British ship was told in no uncertain terms to respond to an instruction from the commander of a military blockade which said ship was attempting to break, and it chose to charge on anyway, that the US would attack Isreal?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Have you left behind your razor-sharp accurate commentary... just for this post?

Do you seriously think that if a British ship was told in no uncertain terms to respond to an instruction from the commander of a military blockade which said ship was attempting to break, and it chose to charge on anyway, that the US would attack Isreal?

No, but I think you've left behind your ability to detect sarcasm...

[IndieHibby]

No, but I think you've left behind your ability to detect sarcasm...

Silly me, always forgetting my sarcasm-detecting radar!

So it's not, not even technically, declaration of war on NATO?

[hibsdaft]

mmmmm..... One has to seriously question the mentality of those on board that ship.

On approaching their desired port, they are told by the IDF that it is blockaded (which they knew anyway) and were given instructions on how to co-operate with the naval blockade.

Option 1: "We have made our point, so now it is time to co-operate with the IDF"
Option 2: "**** 'em anyway, what are they going to do, huh?"

Surprisingly, they went for Option 2. Wouldn't have been my choice, but then what do I know?

Having taken Option 2, they are now attempting to break a military blockade in one of the world's most intractable trouble-spots.

Got to admire their balls, haven't you? But their brains really do let them down over their next choice:

Option 1: "Allow the heavily armed Commandos to board the ship and, well, do what they like. I mean what choice do we have? It's not like we can take them on, is it?.......Oh wait, there is another way!! -

Option 2: "We could beat the **** out of them with metal poles and stuff we have lying around. They are bound to give up and go home, allowing us free passage to give succour to their enemy, aren't they?"

Well, we all know what choice they made. It resulted in quite a few of them dying.

Words fail me when trying to express the downright stupidity of their actions.

But on the other hand, the IDF were heavy handed weren't they? I mean they didn't have to board the ship. Oh wait, that is exactly how you stop a ship, without sinking it. Balls.

OK, they didn't have to kill people, right?

Well, watching that video, if I was one of those Commandos getting my head caved in, I sure as hell would have done anything to stop it.

lets get this right, if an armed intruder broke into yr home and you had the nerve to confront him but were then shot dead, you wouldn't mind us sitting here on hibs.net a few hours after you were shot dead saying "what a stupid bloke he was, no brains at all. if i was the intruder i'd of shot him dead too" etc. "he had too eh". "stupid is as stupid does".

you sure?

personally my attitude and the attitude of most in such a scenario would be fair ****ing play for having a go, what an undeserved tragedy.

certainly nobody (other than khib and Fergus apparently) would be saying "how dare that man attack the intruder, he is to blame for being shot not the intruder!"

[IndieHibby]

“They were armed” said an Israeli spokesperson as they showed a video of an iron bar, that could have been off anything, and a rather forlorn looking catapult.

That’s from the Israelis armed with at least one gun ship and helicopters with navy seals on board; armed to the teeth with every imaginable weapon that could be carried by hand.

In international waters.

Piracy.

A bit of an over-reaction, don't you think? Surely respecting 'International Waters' is only extended to those who co-operate with the authorties surrounding said waters?

Or would you allow a boat full of car-bombs from Ireland to sit in International Waters, just waiting for an opportunity to dock on mainland UK?

{And, no, before anyone else jumps on the analogy, I don't think that an aid ship and a boat full of car bombs are the same thing, but that is not the point, is it?}

[IndieHibby]

lets get this right, if an armed intruder broke into yr home and you had the nerve to confront him but were then shot dead, you wouldn't mind us sitting here on hibs.net a few hours after you were shot dead saying "what a stupid bloke he was, no brains at all. if i was the intruder i'd of shot him dead too" etc. "he had too eh". "stupid is as stupid does".

you sure?

personally my attitude and the attitude of most in such a scenario would be fair ****ing play for having a go, what an undeserved tragedy.

certainly nobody (other than khib and Fergus apparently) would be saying "how dare that man attack the intruder, he is to blame for being shot not the intruder!"

Your analogy would be fair, except the aid-ship was the 'intruder', not the IDF.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Silly me, always forgetting my sarcasm-detecting radar!

So it's not, not even technically, declaration of war on NATO?

Well technically I suppose it is (anyone feel free to correct me if that's not the case). The same as with the attack on the USS Liberty. But I don't think the 'an attack against one is an attack against all' stuff is meant to be taken at its word. Obviously, I'd have thought.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Your analogy would be fair, except the aid-ship was the intruder, not the IDF.

Try again.

I'd love to here an explanation of the convey being the intruder. Go on, it'll be great.

[IndieHibby]

I'd love to here an explanation of the convey being the intruder. Go on, it'll be great.

Well, seeing as you asked so nicely....:greengrin

The IDF have a naval blockade covering the whole of Gaza, right? So they are present in the water to stop ships getting in.

A ship with the openly stated desire of breaking said blockade, turns up at the blockade.

If you are the IDF, what do you do? You can't let them pass - you have to convince them to stop and turn away. So you offer them a land route to deliver their aid and safe passage to do so. Seems reasonable?

But they chose to carry on anyway. This is the point at which they are intruding on the the blockade. They are, effectively, challenging the might of the Isreali state. Did they really expect the IDF just to let them through? :faf:

Whether or not you agree that the IDF have a right to be there is completely beside the point.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ah won't interrupt this thread for a pound.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Well, seeing as you asked so nicely....:greengrin

The IDF have a naval blockade covering the whole of Gaza, right? So they are present in the water to stop ships getting in.

A ship with the openly stated desire of breaking said blockade, turns up at the blockade.

If you are the IDF, what do you do? You can't let them pass - you have to convince them to stop and turn away. So you offer them a land route to deliver their aid and safe passage to do so. Seems reasonable?

But they chose to carry on anyway. This is the point at which they are intruding on the the blockade. They are, effectively, challenging the might of the Isreali state. Did they really expect the IDF just to let them through? :faf:

Whether or not you agree that the IDF have a right to be there is completely beside the point.

All of which would have the vague semblance of a point if, that's right, the blockade of Gaza wasn't a violation of international law. They were not intruding on anything, they were not going to enter Israeli waters at any point.

The laughter smilie (which isn't misplaced or anything, oh no) suggests that you aren't aware that an aid convoy was allowed through in the past - by Ehud Olmert no less.

Israel has absolutely no right to place the Gaza Strip under a naval blockade and it has absolutely no right to attack vessels in international waters. On the other side, the people aboard the boat had every right (under maritime law) to resist the hijacking. This is absolutely black and white - anything else is an attempt to muddy the waters.

[hibsdaft]

Your analogy would be fair, except the aid-ship was the 'intruder', not the IDF.

they were in international waters, 60 miles from Gaza.

the analogy is perfectly fair.

[lyonhibs]

All of which would have the vague semblance of a point if, that's right, the blockade of Gaza wasn't a violation of international law. They were not intruding on anything, they were not going to enter Israeli waters at any point.

The laughter smilie (which isn't misplaced or anything, oh no) suggests that you aren't aware that an aid convoy was allowed through in the past - by Ehud Olmert no less.

Israel has absolutely no right to place the Gaza Strip under a naval blockade and it has absolutely no right to attack vessels in international waters. On the other side, the people aboard the boat had every right (under maritime law) to resist the hijacking. This is absolutely black and white - anything else is an attempt to muddy the waters.

I was wondering this - short of heavy handed barbarism, what is the IDF doing preventing aid ships coming into port??

As for the land route apparently offered, I suspect the aid being delivered wasn't of the "caviar for the rich" variety, but was much needed medical equipment/supplies or somesuch. To divert the ship, unload supplies onto land transport - was the IDF proposing to supply this, or was such transport just to magically appear?? - then drive to the aid's intented recipients is not a "decent alternative" at all.

I try not to involve myself in the Middle East debates that go on here, predominantely because I know **** all about that region and all the various political nuances/tensions that exist, but this just seems like outright and wanton barbarity from the IDF.

[IndieHibby]

they were in international waters, 60 miles from Gaza.

the analogy is perfectly fair.

...heading towards Gaza, with no intention of stopping. But I'll concede, that if I was responsible for making the decision to board, I would have waited until 60 miles later. I'd be interested to know why they didn't wait - there must be a sound reason.

I still can't accept the analogy however. They knew that they were provoking the IDF into a reaction. They could have just let the Commandos board the ship. As if they ever had a chance of stopping them?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Alright, 75p, ah won't interrupt this thread for 75p.

[IndieHibby]

All of which would have the vague semblance of a point if, that's right, the blockade of Gaza wasn't a violation of international law. They were not intruding on anything, they were not going to enter Israeli waters at any point.

The laughter smilie (which isn't misplaced or anything, oh no) suggests that you aren't aware that an aid convoy was allowed through in the past - by Ehud Olmert no less.

Israel has absolutely no right to place the Gaza Strip under a naval blockade and it has absolutely no right to attack vessels in international waters. On the other side, the people aboard the boat had every right (under maritime law) to resist the hijacking. This is absolutely black and white - anything else is an attempt to muddy the waters.

I did say that, whether they have the right to or not, is beside the point. FWIW, I happen to think that they have no right to do so, but I sure as hell wouldn't allow the Isreali's to tell us how to stop the IRA, so why would we presume to expect them to listen to us over Hamas?

Anyway, the people on the ship could have chosen on at least two occasions to prevent violence and they chose not to.

I still can't get my head round it...

[hibsdaft]

...heading towards Gaza, with no intention of stopping.

heading towards Gaza :greengrin woopy ****in do, that means hee haw i'm afraid, you know that.

if you want to discuss context and the history of gaza/ israel / palestine and the justification for the blockade then LH is yr man i can't be bothered and am no expert.

the facts are this: they were perfectly entitled to be where they were and the Isreali's weren't. there's no debating that.


I still can't accept the analogy however. They knew that they were provoking the IDF into a reaction. They could have just let the Commandos board the ship.

of course, but the point is they didn't. they chose to stand up to the armed intruder and now we have the choice of blaming them for getting the kicking as a result or saying no, actually you had every right to act the way you did, the armed intruder was in the wrong and i'm going to stick up for the wee guy who chose to stand, fight and take a kicking.


As if they ever had a chance of stopping them?

dunno, they seemed to be doing a pretty good job on them for a wee moment there :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

I did say that, whether they have the right to or not, is beside the point. FWIW, I happen to think that they have no right to do so, but I sure as hell wouldn't allow the Isreali's to tell us how to stop the IRA, so why would we presume to expect them to listen to us over Hamas?

So what is the point?


Anyway, the people on the ship could have chosen on at least two occasions to prevent violence and they chose not to.

I still can't get my head round it...

Yeah, and those protesting in Derry in '72 could have avoided bloodshed by staying home and having a nice cup of tea...

****ing hell.

[Betty Boop]

International Activists Cause Their Own Deaths
By Attacking Non-confrontational Israeli Commandos?

By Belén Fernández

May 31, 2010 "Palestine Think Tank" -- At a press briefing this morning following the massacre by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commandos of passengers on board the Mavi Marmara, one of the boats pertaining to the Freedom Flotilla attempting to break the siege of Gaza, IDF spokeswoman Avital Liebovitch claimed that the passengers had engaged in “severe violence against our soldiers.”

According to Liebovitch, the violence was premeditated and was administered via live fire, sharp items such as knives, and weapons “grabbed” from the IDF commandos. While underscoring Israel’s unique ability to portray its armed forces as victims, the analysis failed to provide a compelling reason for why—if the alleged attack using grabbed weapons was indeed premeditated—the IDF did not throw a wrench in the works by simply refraining from raiding the ship.
Apparently not satisfied with sporadic violations of logic, Liebovitch reiterated that the IDF had not desired a confrontation with the activists but that the justness of the confrontation— which she herself admitted occurred “not in Israeli territory”—had since been proven given the passengers’ alleged reaction. The Israeli tendency to award retroactive justification to its actions was also evident during the 2008-2009 attack on Gaza, which Israel advertised as a defensive war against Palestinian rockets by severing the portion of the cause-and-effect timeline that involved deliberate Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas. The inversion of aggressor and victim did not of course prevent Gazan civilians from perishing in this particular confrontation at a rate of approximately 400:1 vis-à-vis their Israeli counterparts.

As for the inversion of aggressor and victim aboard the Mavi Marmara, a communiqué on the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry this morning confirmed that pre-planned “life-threatening and violent activity” against the IDF commandos could have been averted had the humanitarian vessels heeded the invitation of the Israeli Navy to dock at Ashdod, “where they would be able to unload their aid material which would then be transferred over land [to Gaza] after undergoing security inspections.” Such charitable offers regarding the fate of 10,000 tons of international aid have yet to be reconciled with the continuing Israel denial that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, or with the fact that pencils and laundry detergent have not in recent Gazan history been eligible for overland transfer. The naval invitation to Ashdod has meanwhile been called into question by Liebovitch’s declaration this morning that the purpose of the confrontation on the Mavi Marmara was simply to prevent the passengers’ entrance to Israel.

Other finishing touches to Liebovitch’s post-massacre performance include her announcement that it was fortunate that the commandos participating in the raid “had those guns” to defend themselves during the attack, despite her earlier claim that said weaponry had been a critical feature of the premeditated violence. We can only assume that the same sort of fortune is awaiting the IDF in the event that it is forced into another confrontation with Gazan civilians, whose fabricated humanitarian crisis is of course the root cause of the plot by international activists to attack Israeli soldiers.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Craig Murray on the ins-and-outs of the legalities.

The Legal Position on the Israeli Attack

I think that anybody with any fairness is bound to admit that the statement William Hague came out with is much better than anything on Israel which New Labour ever came out with, especially this bit:
"This news underlines the need to lift the restrictions on access to Gaza, in line with UNSCR 1860. The closure is unacceptable and counter-productive. There can be no better response from the international community to this tragedy than to achieve urgently a durable resolution to the Gaza crisis. I call on the Government of Israel to open the crossings to allow unfettered access for aid to Gaza, and address the serious concerns about the deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation and about the effect on a generation of young Palestinians
‪."
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=22300485 But as I told this afternoon's tremendous spontaneous demonstration on Whitehall, fine words are not enough and we must now see the kind of sanctions regime we saw against apartheid South Africa.

A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

Edit: And in case anyone doesn't know, Murray was the head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - Maritime Section.

[Jack]

I cant get the quotes to work on my phone.
.
IndieHibby, its a bit like the UK puting a blockade round Belgium.
.
Unless, I think war is declared which it hasn't, no one, not even neighbours, have the right to stop anyone on the high seas. That is exactly the problem they, the international community, have off Somalia.

[Bishop Hibee]

Caught a snippet of the news this morning. Am I right in saying that Israeli agents boarded the ship of a foreign power in International waters today, and then started a gun fight?

That can't be right can it? :stirrer::wink:

Where's FalkirkHibs to defend the indefencible?

[LiverpoolHibs]

:stirrer::wink:

Where's FalkirkHibs to defend the indefencible?

There are plenty of others happy to take up the slack in his absence.

Coverage of the Downing St. protest and speeches here (http://atthesauce.blogspot.com/2010/05/gaza-flotilla-israeli-soldiers-should.html).

I've never heard of this Lowkey bloke before, but his is an absolutely ****ing fantastic speech/rap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCCpdyGMTZ0&feature=player_embedded).

Craig Murray's is good as well.

[magpie1892]

I've never heard of this Lowkey bloke before, but his is an absolutely ****ing fantastic speech/rap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCCpdyGMTZ0&feature=player_embedded).

Impassioned, but pretty ordinary and lacking precision.

Murray's take was infiintely better; erudite, measured and supremely logical.

Less of the former and more of the latter, IMHO.

[hibsdaft]

Impassioned, but pretty ordinary and lacking precision.

Murray's take was infiintely better; erudite, measured and supremely logical.

Less of the former and more of the latter, IMHO.

:agree:

hotheads don't convince the majority.

mind you, ex-Ambassador's make ***** rappers :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Impassioned, but pretty ordinary and lacking precision.

Murray's take was infiintely better; erudite, measured and supremely logical.

Less of the former and more of the latter, IMHO.

I thought it was very precise and perfectly toned for the occasion, but it's a matter of preference I guess.

Agreed on Murray.

[magpie1892]

:agree:

hotheads don't convince the majority.

mind you, ex-Ambassador's make ***** rappers :greengrin

On occasions such as these I wonder what Malcolm X would have made of the situation. That would have been a excoriating 'balance' between the two bases I think.

However, 'hotheads don't convince the majority' - there are more than a few excpeptions to that rule!

[hibsdaft]

However, 'hotheads don't convince the majority' - there are more than a few excpeptions to that rule!

too true - that was more about setting up the second point than saying something profound tbh :greengrin

[magpie1892]

I thought it was very precise and perfectly toned for the occasion, but it's a matter of preference I guess.

Agreed on Murray.

Nothing against the 'urban'/freeform protest per se, just didn't think it was up to much when placed against the oration of someone like Farrakhan, Sharpton or Khalid Muhammed (the first two of that trio offend me deeply) - who themselves are/were not from the top, top drawer (wherein you find Hitler, X, King, etc., the 'untouchables'!)

[IndieHibby]

So what is the point?



Yeah, and those protesting in Derry in '72 could have avoided bloodshed by staying home and having a nice cup of tea...

****ing hell.

The point is, they could have avoided the deaths by not being completely confrontational with men with guns.

Just to clarify, at no point did I defend the IDF (heaven forbid). I entered this debate to point out what I saw was the folly of taking them on.

[IndieHibby]

I cant get the quotes to work on my phone.
.
IndieHibby, its a bit like the UK puting a blockade round Belgium.
.
Unless, I think war is declared which it hasn't, no one, not even neighbours, have the right to stop anyone on the high seas. That is exactly the problem they, the international community, have off Somalia.

OK, I get it now. They should have waited until they reached Gaza before boarding.

Or just co-operated with the IDF.

[Betty Boop]

OK, I get it now. They should have waited until they reached Gaza before boarding.

Or just co-operated with the IDF.

People have the right to try and break the blockade, which is illegal under International Law.

[steakbake]

Ah won't interrupt this thread for a pound.

Rolls quietly put the giant spoon back in the drawer.

"That's enough for now", he laughed to himself.

[Chuckie]

For those who feel strongly enough there will be a peaceful protest march on Saturday at 2pm at The Mound.
Edinburgh Palestinian Solidarity.

[IndieHibby]

People have the right to try and break the blockade, which is illegal under International Law.

I never said anything about rights and wrongs here. I just said it was foolish to try to beat up commandos with guns.

No one seems capable of agreeing with what is, in my view at least, a pretty self evident truth.

Why is that?

[lyonhibs]

I never said anything about rights and wrongs here. I just said it was foolish to try to beat up commandos with guns.

No one seems capable of agreeing with what is, in my view at least, a pretty self evident truth.

Why is that?

Foolish, perhaps, but well within their rights.

I guess it's pretty easy to sit in front of one's computer and say "well, logically.................." but the commando barstewards were trying to prevent much-needed aid getting to the Gaza strip.

[Twa Cairpets]

I never said anything about rights and wrongs here. I just said it was foolish to try to beat up commandos with guns.

No one seems capable of agreeing with what is, in my view at least, a pretty self evident truth.

Why is that?

It is only a self evident truth if the alternative was known and was understood and safe.
Again, not debating the rights and wrongs of the action, in a situation like this if you think you/your family are under imminent threat then there is a very compelling argument that doing something to resist is better than doing nothing.

Even if, as you say, sticks v commandos is never going to be much of a fair fight.

[khib70]

I never said anything about rights and wrongs here. I just said it was foolish to try to beat up commandos with guns.

No one seems capable of agreeing with what is, in my view at least, a pretty self evident truth.

Why is that?
If you are seeking "martyrdom", or at the very least, a propaganda coup against your enemy, then it makes perfect sense. The delivery of aid was always a secondary purpose for this convoy. Why, otherwise, does it require 500 plus people to deliver it? Couldn't the space taken up by them be better utilised for more aid? Why did a third of the convoy consist of passenger vessels with no significant cargo capacity?

Unfortunately, the IDF's catastrophic mishandling of the situation has given the fanatics what they want, with tragic results.

[(((Fergus)))]

Foolish, perhaps, but well within their rights.

I guess it's pretty easy to sit in front of one's computer and say "well, logically.................." but the commando barstewards were trying to prevent much-needed aid getting to the Gaza strip.

No they weren't. Israel supplies more aid each week than was on all of these ships not to mention 70% of Gaza's electricity (why, I have no idea). Israel offered to allow transit for goods overland as it has done in previous cases. The purpose of this operation was to prevent the establishment of a corridor to Gaza that could ultimately be used for weapons, etc.

Anyway, for those who are interested in hearing an eyewitness account, here is an interview with one of the commandos injured in the operation. Everything he says is confirmed by the video evidence except the allegation that they were fired at with live ammunition, which may or may not be true, although I'd sooner believe him than the peace activist side who said the soldiers descended firing weapons into people sleeping on the deck. Underneath a helicopter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9p5QT91QYs

[(((Fergus)))]

If you are seeking "martyrdom", or at the very least, a propaganda coup against your enemy, then it makes perfect sense. The delivery of aid was always a secondary purpose for this convoy. Why, otherwise, does it require 500 plus people to deliver it? Couldn't the space taken up by them be better utilised for more aid? Why did a third of the convoy consist of passenger vessels with no significant cargo capacity?

Unfortunately, the IDF's catastrophic mishandling of the situation has given the fanatics what they want, with tragic results.

While I agree that the IDF made a serious misjudgement in the case of this particular ship (all the others were commandeered peacefully) and thus needlessly endangered the lives of its troops, I disagree that they are responsible for the fanatic response from various quarters. It's pretty obvious that there are many people who hate the very fact that Israel exists, therefore anything it does is an affront to them since it reminds them of its existence.

Even when Israel sent medics to Haiti - the first there apparently, such is their naive desperation to be loved by the world (am I being too cynical?) - you had the likes of J. Tonge accusing them of going there merely to harvest organs. Against that sort of ancient antisemitic mindset there is no place for reason.

[ballengeich]

If you are seeking "martyrdom", or at the very least, a propaganda coup against your enemy, then it makes perfect sense. The delivery of aid was always a secondary purpose for this convoy. Why, otherwise, does it require 500 plus people to deliver it? Couldn't the space taken up by them be better utilised for more aid? Why did a third of the convoy consist of passenger vessels with no significant cargo capacity?

Unfortunately, the IDF's catastrophic mishandling of the situation has given the fanatics what they want, with tragic results.

A good summary. While the IDF have made a tragic mess of their operation, their opponents have to explain why the convoy declined the opportunity to allow Israeli inspection of the goods being delivered. Given Hamas's philosophy and history, it is realistic to assume that an open trade border would be used to import weapons for further attacks on Israel. It's worth note that Egypt is also maintaining a blockade, though that gets rather less attention for some reason.

By the way, congratulations on maintaining a courteous and reasoned style of posting on this subject. It's something not observable in all posters.

[Twa Cairpets]

While I agree that the IDF made a serious misjudgement in the case of this particular ship (all the others were commandeered peacefully) and thus needlessly endangered the lives of its troops, I disagree that they are responsible for the fanatic response from various quarters. It's pretty obvious that there are many people who hate the very fact that Israel exists, therefore anything it does is an affront to them since it reminds them of its existence.


I'll save LiverpoolHibs the trouble. If this is a wind up it is in very poor taste, if it is representative of your view, it is disgusting.

[khib70]

While I agree that the IDF made a serious misjudgement in the case of this particular ship (all the others were commandeered peacefully) and thus needlessly endangered the lives of its troops, I disagree that they are responsible for the fanatic response from various quarters. It's pretty obvious that there are many people who hate the very fact that Israel exists, therefore anything it does is an affront to them since it reminds them of its existence.

Even when Israel sent medics to Haiti - the first there apparently, such is their naive desperation to be loved by the world (am I being too cynical?) - you had the likes of J. Tonge accusing them of going there merely to harvest organs. Against that sort of ancient antisemitic mindset there is no place for reason.

Agree with much of that, especially the "anything and everything Israel does is wrong" mindset. However I still consider that there was a huge failure of intelligence about the nature of the resistance expected, and that the need to respond to that level of violence with the forces and weapons available caused unecessary casualties on both sides.


A good summary. While the IDF have made a tragic mess of their operation, their opponents have to explain why the convoy declined the opportunity to allow Israeli inspection of the goods being delivered. Given Hamas's philosophy and history, it is realistic to assume that an open trade border would be used to import weapons for further attacks on Israel. It's worth note that Egypt is also maintaining a blockade, though that gets rather less attention for some reason.

By the way, congratulations on maintaining a courteous and reasoned style of posting on this subject. It's something not observable in all posters.
Thanks. I do try, but I'd be the first to admit I don't always succeed!

[(((Fergus)))]

I'll save LiverpoolHibs the trouble. If this is a wind up it is in very poor taste, if it is representative of your view, it is disgusting.

What, you think they should have endangered the lives of their troops?

[(((Fergus)))]

However I still consider that there was a huge failure of intelligence about the nature of the resistance expected, and that the need to respond to that level of violence with the forces and weapons available caused unecessary casualties on both sides.


I totally agree, I think they were very naive and took the flotilla organisers' word at face value. In 5 out of 6 cases they were right but it should have been 6 out of 6.

[Twa Cairpets]

What, you think they should have endangered the lives of their troops?

Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what you are implying and it is very poor taste.

[(((Fergus)))]

Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what you are implying and it is very poor taste.

You will need to spell it out for me.

[Twa Cairpets]

You will need to spell it out for me.

Nah, I'm not going to massage your ego, it would make no difference to your view, and you do a perfectly good job of spelling out exactly where you stand yourself.

[(((Fergus)))]

Nah, I'm not going to massage your ego, it would make no difference to your view, and you do a perfectly good job of spelling out exactly where you stand yourself.

If you've got a point to make, please make it. If my point of view is wrong, I would like to find out.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Here we go again, lies, disinformation and illogicality.


The point is, they could have avoided the deaths by not being completely confrontational with men with guns.

Just to clarify, at no point did I defend the IDF (heaven forbid). I entered this debate to point out what I saw was the folly of taking them on.

So you never claimed that the aid ships were 'intruding'?


If you are seeking "martyrdom", or at the very least, a propaganda coup against your enemy, then it makes perfect sense. The delivery of aid was always a secondary purpose for this convoy. Why, otherwise, does it require 500 plus people to deliver it? Couldn't the space taken up by them be better utilised for more aid? Why did a third of the convoy consist of passenger vessels with no significant cargo capacity?

Unfortunately, the IDF's catastrophic mishandling of the situation has given the fanatics what they want, with tragic results.

Right. Do you have any evidence that people were taking up space that could have been given over to aid?

Do you have any evidence that there were people on board that wanted a massacre of themselves and their comrades to take place aside from one woman's throwaway line? Those on board were well aware that an Israeli intervention might occur and that given the IDF's historical tendency of indiscriminately targetting civilians (c.f. the Goldstone Report) they were aware that such a massacre might occur.


No they weren't. Israel supplies more aid each week than was on all of these ships not to mention 70% of Gaza's electricity (why, I have no idea). Israel offered to allow transit for goods overland as it has done in previous cases. The purpose of this operation was to prevent the establishment of a corridor to Gaza that could ultimately be used for weapons, etc.

Instead of spending time amongst the assorted lunatics on Harry's Place you should spend a bit of time reading some of the excellent sites written by people who consider themselves Zionists - they do actually exist. I'd particularly recommend one written by a Jewish Studies Professor calling himself the Magnes Zionist (http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/). He pretty much nails the utter moral awfulness of this argument.

In order to have a humanitarian crisis, you have to consider people human. Israel for a long time has treated Gazans as animals that ought to be kept alive because Israelis are not cruel to animals. The Israelis will recite the daily totals of humanitarian aid that they let in (which, of course, they don't pay a penny for.) The jailer considers himself a "humanitarian" if he lets the inmates eat. So, as animals, the Gazans are allowed to eat. But humans need more than food in order to be human. As Amira Hass pointed out recently (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/amira-hass-lexicon-of-most-misleading-terms-in-israeli-palestinian-conflict-1.293131),

"But what about a person's need for freedom of movement, a person's right to create, to produce, to earn a living and study, to leave for timely medical treatment and to travel? The spokespeople and PR professionals who try to prove things are fine reduce human needs to a graph containing only water, food and shelter. These graphs tell more about their presenters than they do about human beings."

Humans have the right to know what products will be available. But the Gazans are like caged animals who are entirely at the whim of their keepers. They are not told why chocolate is let in one month but not the next month; why some vegetables can come in one month, and not the next. And yes, the Egyptians are also to blame, and I, for one, blame them. But they clearly have much less responsibility than Israel.

You, however, go further than those conducting the illegal siege and believe that Israel should cut off anything going into Gaza. This is the eqivalent of not just running a concentration camp but locking people up in one and then allowing them to starve to death. This is the thinking of someone who is a confirmed psychopath.


While I agree that the IDF made a serious misjudgement in the case of this particular ship (all the others were commandeered peacefully) and thus needlessly endangered the lives of its troops, I disagree that they are responsible for the fanatic response from various quarters. It's pretty obvious that there are many people who hate the very fact that Israel exists, therefore anything it does is an affront to them since it reminds them of its existence.

Even when Israel sent medics to Haiti - the first there apparently, such is their naive desperation to be loved by the world (am I being too cynical?) - you had the likes of J. Tonge accusing them of going there merely to harvest organs. Against that sort of ancient antisemitic mindset there is no place for reason.

Yeah, Two Carpets has got you pegged on how disgusting this is.


A good summary. While the IDF have made a tragic mess of their operation, their opponents have to explain why the convoy declined the opportunity to allow Israeli inspection of the goods being delivered. Given Hamas's philosophy and history, it is realistic to assume that an open trade border would be used to import weapons for further attacks on Israel. It's worth note that Egypt is also maintaining a blockade, though that gets rather less attention for some reason.

By the way, congratulations on maintaining a courteous and reasoned style of posting on this subject. It's something not observable in all posters.

Because Israel has no legal right to inspect goods coming in to Gaza. The attempts to stop good coming in and the blockade in general are a violation of international law. It's that simple.

No arms have been found on the boat whatsoever. Independent international observers checked every single boat in the convoy for arms before the convoy set sail.

As I've said before, anything other than a focus on what is correct here is an attempt to act as an apologist for a massacre. I'm not sure why so many people want to be in this position.

1) The blockade is illegal.

2) The boat was not engaged in any illegal activities whatsoever.

3) The boat was in international waters.

4) The attempted hijacking was a violation of international maritime law. More than that, it was an illegal Act of War because that boat was sovereign Turkish territory.

5) The passengers on the flotilla were perfectly entitled, under maritime law, to resist the attempted hijacking.

6) The hijackers responded to this resistance by commiting a massacre with assault rifles and side-arms of people armed with sticks, bars and chairs.

People can attempt to muddy the waters with lies and disinformation - so long that is that they want to be complicit (to whatever degree) in the massacre - but these are the important facts of the matter.

There's also a great deal of focus on Egyptian complicity in the blockade. You just aren't paying attention. Any suggestion that it deserves an equal level of ire as that directed against the Israeli blockade is patently ludicrous.

[LiverpoolHibs]

There's also a great deal of focus on Egyptian complicity in the blockade. You just aren't paying attention. Any suggestion that it deserves an equal level of ire as that directed against the Israeli blockade is patently ludicrous.

And, thankfully, they've just opened the Egyptian border this minute. Excellent news.

[Betty Boop]

And, thankfully, they've just opened the Egyptian border this minute. Excellent news.

That is wonderful news! :greengrin

[khib70]

[QUOTE=LiverpoolHibs;2482747]Here we go again, lies, disinformation and illogicality.



Right. Do you have any evidence that people were taking up space that could have been given over to aid?

Do you have any evidence that there were people on board that wanted a massacre of themselves and their comrades to take place aside from one woman's throwaway line? Those on board were well aware that an Israeli intervention might occur and that given the IDF's historical tendency of indiscriminately targetting civilians (c.f. the Goldstone Report) they were aware that such a massacre might occur.

And if your main aim is to deliver as much aid as possible to the people of Gaza, a cruise ship would be your vessel of choice? The only evidence that's required is that people are taking up space. That means there's no aid in that space, no?

And, what about the assorted nutters on the same video as the martyrdom lady, chanting anti-Jewish (not anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish( slogans? And, if as you say, the people on the convoy were confidently expecting the IDF to indiscriminately massacre them, how responsible was it to continue to defy repeated requests to turn back?

Lies, disinformation, illogicality:? Not from where I'm sitting, but I'm sure your little get together on Saturday will be a feast for the lovers of such treats.

[khib70]

1) The blockade is illegal.

2) The boat was not engaged in any illegal activities whatsoever.

3) The boat was in international waters.

4) The attempted hijacking was a violation of international maritime law. More than that, it was an illegal Act of War because that boat was sovereign Turkish territory.

.
Oh, and talking of lies and disinformation, you are employing your usual technique of making a statement that is manifestly untrue, and then repeating it ad infinitum, as if the very repetition makes it true.

"A maritime blockade is a legal device under international law. It has to have a reason (Israel's is that Hamas would import arms), it has to be formally declared (it was) and it has to be enforced (it is).

By intercepting beyond the blockade limits, Israel took a risk that the action would be challenged under international law, but the issue is at least debatable. "

The above is from a piece by BBC World Affairs Correspondent Paul Reynolds on the BBC website, which is also pretty critical of Israel's role.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10203333.stm

In fact this is at best, a grey area, and your constant use of the word "illegal" (as with the Iraq war) is totally disingenuous, and disinformation in its purest form

[LiverpoolHibs]

And if your main aim is to deliver as much aid as possible to the people of Gaza, a cruise ship would be your vessel of choice? The only evidence that's required is that people are taking up space. That means there's no aid in that space, no?

Erm, you're aware that the regular references to an aid convoy means that the Mavi Marmara wasn't the only ship, yeah? It was the lead of a convoy of six ships.

Let me know when you find out that aid was stopped from being loaded onto the ships due to the amount of space taken by the passengers.


And, what about the assorted nutters on the same video as the martyrdom lady, chanting anti-Jewish (not anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish( slogans? And, if as you say, the people on the convoy were confidently expecting the IDF to indiscriminately massacre them, how responsible was it to continue to defy repeated requests to turn back?
What about them? What relevance does it have to the subject at hand? Are the subtitles al-Jazeera's or Palwatch's?

I didn't say the 'expected it' I said that they would have been well aware that the IDF has a historical record of indiscriminately targetting unarmed civilians. They'd also have been well aware that an aid convoy was allowed through in the past.

They would not have been aware of the unanimous Cabinet decision to respond to the attempt to break an illegal blockade by hijacking the boat with commandos armed with live rounds.

Again, as I've said, your utter desperation to defend Israel at any costs means that you have to perform an incredible moral backflips to create a bizarre alternate reality where the people getting shot and killed for defying an illegal order and an illegal hijacking are responsible for their own deaths and the people conducting the illegal hijacking are responsible for nothing. It's pretty sickening to watch.

Lies, disinformation, illogicality:? Not from where I'm sitting, but I'm sure your little get together on Saturday will be a feast for the lovers of such treats.

Weak.

[Killiehibbie]

Why is anybody getting worked up about this? The people in the boats set out to see how Israel would deal with them steaming towards the blockade. They didn't have to die we could've told them how Israel would react.

[Beefster]

Why is anybody getting worked up about this? The people in the boats set out to see how Israel would deal with them steaming towards the blockade. They didn't have to die we could've told them how Israel would react.

Because in any debate about Palestine/Israel, one has to be evil incarnate and the other blameless no matter the circumstances.

It's why I never get involved in these debates. It's like putting Orangemen and Catholics in the same room and asking them to agree on how nice the Pope is.

[steakbake]

Why is anybody getting worked up about this? The people in the boats set out to see how Israel would deal with them steaming towards the blockade. They didn't have to die we could've told them how Israel would react.

Israel is not known for restraint or being reasonable within international law. In fact, in my humble opinion, they flaunt international law and commit various war crimes on a regular basis. They get away with it because they're Israel. They have the protection of the USA and to my mind, they continue to point to their historical status as victims as some kind of carte blanche or rationale to do whatever they please with impugnity.

So, to my point: if these people were of the same view as me - and to be honest, they're activists so I imagine they have a far more committed and amplified view of it than me - then they might expect that if they ran into an Israeli military blockade they would be met with exactly the kind of brutal treatment that is customary of the Israeli military.

I'm not saying here that the activists are to blame. I just wonder though, what they were expecting would happen if they came up against the same forces that they regularly protest about.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Oh, and talking of lies and disinformation, you are employing your usual technique of making a statement that is manifestly untrue, and then repeating it ad infinitum, as if the very repetition makes it true.

You tried this before. You couldn't back it up then and you won't be able to do so now.


"A maritime blockade is a legal device under international law. It has to have a reason (Israel's is that Hamas would import arms), it has to be formally declared (it was) and it has to be enforced (it is).

By intercepting beyond the blockade limits, Israel took a risk that the action would be challenged under international law, but the issue is at least debatable. "

The above is from a piece by BBC World Affairs Correspondent Paul Reynolds on the BBC website, which is also pretty critical of Israel's role.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10203333.stm

In fact this is at best, a grey area, and your constant use of the word "illegal" (as with the Iraq war) is totally disingenuous, and disinformation in its purest form

This is unmitigated nonsense.

If Reynolds is really attempting to argue that the blockade of Gaza is all perfectly legal and above board then someone needs to take him to task and he needs to be disciplined by his superiors for spreading lies. However, I can't quite establish if that's definitely what he's saying as it's such an, presumably intentionally, odd way to say it.

He must think that he knows more about the human rights and legality of the situation than the High Commissionar of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Navi Pillay, who has written that,

The blockade of Gaza by Israel was recently condemned by the international community and humanitarian agencies as constituting collective punishment [which is, of course, illegal under international law].

And the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Richard Falk, who stated in a 2008 dossier on abuses committed by Israel in the Occupied Territories that;

Any assessment under international law of the attacks of 27 December should take into account the weakened condition of the Gazan civilian population resulting from the sustained unlawfulness of the pre-existing Israeli blockade that violated articles 33 (prohibition on collective punishment) and 55 (duty to provide food and health care to the occupied population) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Or perhaps as those radicals at Amnesty International have it,

The scope of the blockade and statements made by Israeli officials [I] about its purpose showed that it was imposed as a form of collective punishment of Gazans, a flagrant violation of international law.

The blockade of Gaza is, and there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever about this, a textbook example of a state collectively punishing the population of another state - in this case for electing a government that the Israeli government does not like. This is a violation of the Geneva Convention and therefore a violation of international law.

I fully expect this sort of thing to become more and more common in the next few days as the Hasbara wheels are properly oiled.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Straight out of an IDF spokesman's blog, and apparently without the tiniest bit of irony - to the extent that it's almost tragic - it's the moment everbody's been waiting for, evidence of weapons found on board the Mavi Marmara...

http://idfspokesperson.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/weaponsmarmara1.jpg

Wrenches of mass destruction!

[Betty Boop]

Straight out of an IDF spokesman's blog, and apparently without the tiniest bit of irony - to the extent that it's almost tragic - it's the moment everbody's been waiting for, evidence of weapons found on board the Mavi Marmara...

http://idfspokesperson.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/weaponsmarmara1.jpg

Wrenches of mass destruction!

NATO secretary urges the immediate release of individuals and vessels captured, during the storming of the Mavi Marmara.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100601/159257669.html

[hibsdaft]

Because in any debate about Palestine/Israel, one has to be evil incarnate and the other blameless no matter the circumstances.

It's why I never get involved in these debates. It's like putting Orangemen and Catholics in the same room and asking them to agree on how nice the Pope is.

i have never got into these debates either... until now. this one is beyond the pale, and there's no defence.

[hibsbollah]

i have never got into these debates either... until now. this one is beyond the pale, and there's no defence.


We touched on this subject the other day, possibly on another thread.

There seems to be a willingness for some people, who otherwise might normally be interested in matters like this, to leave the Israeli-Palestinian issue alone and not discuss it, and the reason isnt all that clear. It could be that they see similarities in the Orange/Pape schism, as beefster said, and just see zealots from each side banging away at the other side. It could be that they are influenced by the media, who seem to metaphorically shake their heads and say 'if only these two sides could get together and sort out their differences, but they can't, what a tragedy', in a way that only encourages disinterest in the subject.

But sometimes when you're confronted by a story of such obvious (to me at least), rights and wrongs, a story of oppressors and dispossessed, powerful and powerless, prejudice, fascism, all that kind of jazz, it becomes impossible to be neutral, to 'see both sides', to sit on the fence. It didnt wash in Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, the Balkans in the 1990s and it doesnt wash here. Moral relativism has no place when you're dealing with a tyrant.

[CropleyWasGod]

We touched on this subject the other day, possibly on another thread.



But sometimes when you're confronted by a story of such obvious (to me at least), rights and wrongs, a story of oppressors and dispossessed, powerful and powerless, prejudice, fascism, all that kind of jazz, it becomes impossible to be neutral, to 'see both sides', to sit on the fence. It didnt wash in Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, the Balkans in the 1990s and it doesnt wash here. Moral relativism has no place when you're dealing with a tyrant.

But that's exactly it.... to most people, there is no "obvious" right and wrong. You talk of dispossession... is that for the Jewish people for centuries, or the Palestinians? Prejudice... is that anti-semitic or anti-Moslem?

In my lifetime, Israel has gone from the good guy, the young thrusting noble state born out of the ashes of Auschwitz, to the pariah that it appears to be now. Palestine, on the other hand, has gone from the plane-hijacking terrorist to everyone's favourite hobby horse.

You have made up your mind, and I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion. But.... there IS confusion in people's minds, at least for those only indirectly involved. As one poster has implied earlier, there is no black and white in this conflict, only very mucky grey.

[Beefster]

We touched on this subject the other day, possibly on another thread.

There seems to be a willingness for some people, who otherwise might normally be interested in matters like this, to leave the Israeli-Palestinian issue alone and not discuss it, and the reason isnt all that clear. It could be that they see similarities in the Orange/Pape schism, as beefster said, and just see zealots from each side banging away at the other side. It could be that they are influenced by the media, who seem to metaphorically shake their heads and say 'if only these two sides could get together and sort out their differences, but they can't, what a tragedy', in a way that only encourages disinterest in the subject.

But sometimes when you're confronted by a story of such obvious (to me at least), rights and wrongs, a story of oppressors and dispossessed, powerful and powerless, prejudice, fascism, all that kind of jazz, it becomes impossible to be neutral, to 'see both sides', to sit on the fence. It didnt wash in Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, the Balkans in the 1990s and it doesnt wash here. Moral relativism has no place when you're dealing with a tyrant.

I think that you're wrong. Without feeling the need to justify my 'credentials', I'm naturally pro-Palestinian and contribute to / think things that reflect that.

However, in most incidents (taking them as isolated) I can see that there is blame on both sides. It's been the same this time. As usual, Israel has defied international law and been outrageously heavy-handed whereas the ships in the flotilla firstly, just plain ignored the IDF (irrespective of where they were, ignoring them was never going to end well) and then some on the boat proceeded to attack armed soldiers (never a good move).

Anyway, I'll probably have folk attacking my points on the flotilla and the IDF which is why I don't want to get involved on here. The last point that I'll make is that choosing to not debate an issue on a football forum isn't the same as not caring.

[hibsbollah]

I think that you're wrong.


Wrong about what? the moral relativism or the obvious rights and wrongs in this case?

[Beefster]

Wrong about what? the moral relativism or the obvious rights and wrongs in this case?

I think both sides are usually wrong when debating most isolated 'incidents'. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

[hibsbollah]

I think both sides are usually wrong when debating most isolated 'incidents'. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

In some cases, perhaps. I'm sure the Dutch peacekeepers that stood by and watched Srebenica unfold probably thought 'the truth was probably somewhere in the middle' as well. There are countless other historical examples of studied, deliberate neutrality resulting in complicity. (BTW whether Srebenica=Israel/Palestine or not is irrelevant, im talking about the general principle.)

[khib70]

You tried this before. You couldn't back it up then and you won't be able to do so now.



This is unmitigated nonsense.

If Reynolds is really attempting to argue that the blockade of Gaza is all perfectly legal and above board then someone needs to take him to task and he needs to be disciplined by his superiors for spreading lies. However, I can't quite establish if that's definitely what he's saying as it's such an, presumably intentionally, odd way to say it.

He must think that he knows more about the human rights and legality of the situation than the High Commissionar of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Navi Pillay, who has written that,

The blockade of Gaza by Israel was recently condemned by the international community and humanitarian agencies as constituting collective punishment [which is, of course, illegal under international law].

And the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Richard Falk, who stated in a 2008 dossier on abuses committed by Israel in the Occupied Territories that;

Any assessment under international law of the attacks of 27 December should take into account the weakened condition of the Gazan civilian population resulting from the sustained unlawfulness of the pre-existing Israeli blockade that violated articles 33 (prohibition on collective punishment) and 55 (duty to provide food and health care to the occupied population) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Or perhaps as those radicals at Amnesty International have it,

The scope of the blockade and statements made by Israeli officials [I] about its purpose showed that it was imposed as a form of collective punishment of Gazans, a flagrant violation of international law.

The blockade of Gaza is, and there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever about this, a textbook example of a state collectively punishing the population of another state - in this case for electing a government that the Israeli government does not like. This is a violation of the Geneva Convention and therefore a violation of international law.

I fully expect this sort of thing to become more and more common in the next few days as the Hasbara wheels are properly oiled.
The usual blustering, and mass selective quotation. All you are proving is that some people, including yourself, think the blockade is illegal. There is no definitive court decision or legal statement on this. Therefore your bald statement that it is illegal because you say so is a (deliberate in my view) attempt to mislead.

And Article 55 of the Geneva Convention does not apply at all since, however you try to spin it, Israel is not occupying Gaza. If anyone is, it's Hamas.

I've actually taken part in a naval blockade (of Beira in Mozambique) which was imposed by the UN and which ordered (not allowed, ordered) the Royal Navy to use force to prevent ships landing oil bound for Rhodesia. This blockade involved the stopping and boarding of ships in international waters outside the territorial waters of Mozambique ( which then meant Portugal), hundreds of miles from the target of the blockade.

That blockade, unfortunately, was unsuccessful, but it wasn't illegal.

[Jack]

I've actually taken part in a naval blockade (of Beira in Mozambique) which was imposed by the UN and which ordered (not allowed, ordered) the Royal Navy to use force to prevent ships landing oil bound for Rhodesia. This blockade involved the stopping and boarding of ships in international waters outside the territorial waters of Mozambique ( which then meant Portugal), hundreds of miles from the target of the blockade.

That blockade, unfortunately, was unsuccessful, but it wasn't illegal.

How many did civilians did you shoot and kill?

How is it the whole world is condemning Israel for their actions, including the USA, and you still don’t think what they have done is wrong?

[khib70]

How many did civilians did you shoot and kill?

How is it the whole world is condemning Israel for their actions, including the USA, and you still don’t think what they have done is wrong?
1. None. But if any "civilian" had attacked me with an iron bar, I wouldn't have been turning the other cheek

2. It's called making your own mind up and not being caught up in mass hysteria

[Betty Boop]

The usual blustering, and mass selective quotation. All you are proving is that some people, including yourself, think the blockade is illegal. There is no definitive court decision or legal statement on this. Therefore your bald statement that it is illegal because you say so is a (deliberate in my view) attempt to mislead.

And Article 55 of the Geneva Convention does not apply at all since, however you try to spin it, Israel is not occupying Gaza. If anyone is, it's Hamas.

I've actually taken part in a naval blockade (of Beira in Mozambique) which was imposed by the UN and which ordered (not allowed, ordered) the Royal Navy to use force to prevent ships landing oil bound for Rhodesia. This blockade involved the stopping and boarding of ships in international waters outside the territorial waters of Mozambique ( which then meant Portugal), hundreds of miles from the target of the blockade.

That blockade, unfortunately, was unsuccessful, but it wasn't illegal.

The blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.

[khib70]

The blockade amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.
In your opinion - or has any authoritative body on international law ruled on this? If so, they've done it in secret.

[Betty Boop]

In your opinion - or has any authoritative body on international law ruled on this? If so, they've done it in secret.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/com/380-600038?opendocument

[khib70]

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/com/380-600038?opendocument
I'm aware of the Geneva Convention, thank you. It's you who's interpreting it to suit your definition of "collective punishment".

Meanwhile......

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

[--------]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142146.ece


I think what this article describes is a classic 'ghetto' situation - the destruction of any independent local economy in Gaza, the reduction of the inhabitants to total dependence on outside aid, and the growth of a 'black' economy supplying basic needs like building materials and pharmaceuticals.

And the 'black' economy, of course, provides the excuse (if excuse be needed) for the IDF to initiate actions like the boarding of these ships.

When Iranian Navy gunboats board (or attempt to board) foreign merchantmen in the Persian Gulf, it's denounced as piracy in certain quarters.

When the IDF do it in the Mediterranean - in waters that are clearly international waters - the silence in those same quarters is DEAFENING.

[Betty Boop]

I'm aware of the Geneva Convention, thank you. It's you who's interpreting it to suit your definition of "collective punishment".

Meanwhile......

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

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, must be wrong then. She describes the blockade as collective punishment, and illegal underinternational human rights and humanitarian law.

[bawheid]

Meanwhile......

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

Well isn't that just fabulous? That makes it all alright then... :agree:

[--------]

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, must be wrong then. She describes the blockade as collective punishment, and illegal underinternational human rights and humanitarian law.


:agree:

[khib70]

Well isn't that just fabulous? That makes it all alright then... :agree:
Well, if you'd just abandon the witchunt for a moment and think about it, what it means is that the humanitarian aid would have got through, if the flotilla had obeyed IDF requests, and more importantly, nobody would have been killed or injured.

Though right enough, maybe all those iron bars, knives, heavy wrenches, slingshots, stun grenades and molotov cocktails that are so desperately needed in Gaza wouldn't have made it:cool2:

[Beefster]

In some cases, perhaps. I'm sure the Dutch peacekeepers that stood by and watched Srebenica unfold probably thought 'the truth was probably somewhere in the middle' as well. There are countless other historical examples of studied, deliberate neutrality resulting in complicity. (BTW whether Srebenica=Israel/Palestine or not is irrelevant, im talking about the general principle.)

I think you misunderstand me or didn't read my post this morning as nowhere have I said that I was neutral, in fact, I said almost the opposite.

[bawheid]

Well, if you'd just abandon the witchunt for a moment and think about it, what it means is that the humanitarian aid would have got through, if the flotilla had obeyed IDF requests, and more importantly, nobody would have been killed or injured.


How does it mean that?

This is part of the Israeli efforts to retrieve what should become a horrendous diplomatic situation for them.

[Jack]

1. None. But if any "civilian" had attacked me with an iron bar, I wouldn't have been turning the other cheek

2. It's called making your own mind up and not being caught up in mass hysteria

I should hope not (meant in a way not meaning to be stiff upper lip and all that). I would hate to think any national Forces would act with the disregard of international protocol the Israeli troops and their government appear to get away with because of their, ever increasingly embarrassed, allies the States.

[If it was that easy why doesn’t everyone just destroy the pirates off Somalia for example? What's wrong with North Korea sinking other countries boats close to its international waters? (I’m not really looking for an answer)]

I wasn’t really referring to ‘the great uneducated public’ with the reference to ‘the world’ what I meant was that it was governments, those who are able to call on much more expertise and experience, than you or I, as to what is and isn’t legal in such a situation. These same countries that have flung the diplomatic language oot the windae and are f’g outraged.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The usual blustering, and mass selective quotation. All you are proving is that some people, including yourself, think the blockade is illegal. There is no definitive court decision or legal statement on this. Therefore your bald statement that it is illegal because you say so is a (deliberate in my view) attempt to mislead.

There's not bluster and there's no selective quoting, those quotes (unless you can prove otherwise, which you won't be able to do) are in their full context and are in their full form.

The blockade is illegal as the collective punishment of a civilian population to the extent of creating a humanitarian crisis whilst having little effect on the 'belligerant' is illegal. Do you dispute that any of that is the case?

Furthermore, despite Reynold's assertions, Israel does not consider itself in a state of war with Hamas. If it did so it would be in no position to complain about cross-border attacks by Hamas on Israeli troops and it would be forced, under the Geneva Convention, to treat all Palestinian prisoners from Gaza who had been involved in military operations as political prisoners. It obeys neither of these rules. Israel only treats its conflict with Hamas as constituting a state of war when it suits it to. This means that, by international law, the claim of a state of war is absolutely invalid. The San Remo Handbook, that every apologist for the latest Israeli massacre from Mark Regev to Paul Reynolds have taken to citing at every available opportunity, only applies in cases where the Laws of War apply. They do not apply here.

Regev and Reynolds manipulate the language of the war to state that the blockade and the resulting act the other day are legitimate 'in a state of conflict'. They are not, they are only legitimate under an internationally observed declaration of war and no such declaration exists. The necessary 'state of war' does not exist.

I suggest you take a glance at the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860. You'll see that the second clause of the resolution calls for the, "Unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance including fuel, food and medical treatment", and later calls on nations to, "Ensure the sustained re-opening of the crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access Between Israel and the Palestinian Authority." - it is undeniable that Israel is in violation of this.

Is Navi Pillay deliberately attempting to mislead people? Is Richard Falk deliberately attempting to mislead people? Is Richard Goldstone deliberately attempted to mislead people when he says that the people of Gaza live under, "effective occupation" as a result of the blockade? What about Human Rights Watch when they state that; "Under international law the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops. Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control". All these deceitful people...


And Article 55 of the Geneva Convention does not apply at all since, however you try to spin it, Israel is not occupying Gaza. If anyone is, it's Hamas.

Sorry? In what sense are Hamas occupying Gaza? I recognise that it's necessary for people who seek to defend Israel at every turn to venture into the realm of the fantastical looking for justification. But that's one of the strangest claims I've read. Am I allowed to decide that the Tory-Lib Dem government of Britain are an occupying power?

It's got nothing to do with spinning it, it's got to do with having a look at international law (something you repeatedly show you're not very interested in) - Israel controls practically every aspect of life in Gaza and is legally considered as an occupying power in Gaza by the United Nations.

Does Article 33 apply?


I've actually taken part in a naval blockade (of Beira in Mozambique) which was imposed by the UN and which ordered (not allowed, ordered) the Royal Navy to use force to prevent ships landing oil bound for Rhodesia. This blockade involved the stopping and boarding of ships in international waters outside the territorial waters of Mozambique ( which then meant Portugal), hundreds of miles from the target of the blockade.

That blockade, unfortunately, was unsuccessful, but it wasn't illegal.

Ok, but that was a U.N. sanctioned blockade. So what's your point?

[magpie1892]

Meanwhile......

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

I think the Gazans could have managed this themselves, had they been allowed the opportunity!

[Chuckie]

1. None. But if any "civilian" had attacked me with an iron bar, I wouldn't have been turning the other cheek

2. It's called making your own mind up and not being caught up in mass hysteria

Your efforts to palliate the seriousness of these murders are bizarre, and one can only assume you are spoiling for an argument.

Witnesses on board the flotilla have said that the IDF were shooting from their helicopters BEFORE they attempted to board the vessel, and the aid workers drew arms to protect themselves.

[khib70]

Your efforts to palliate the seriousness of these murders are bizarre, and one can only assume you are spoiling for an argument.

Witnesses on board the flotilla have said that the IDF were shooting from their helicopters BEFORE they attempted to board the vessel, and the aid workers drew arms to protect themselves.
Funny how none of the considerable video footage from the scene bears this out, and only one or two eyewitnesses are making the claim.

As for the last part of your post....so they were carrying arms,then?

[Twa Cairpets]

In some cases, perhaps. I'm sure the Dutch peacekeepers that stood by and watched Srebenica unfold probably thought 'the truth was probably somewhere in the middle' as well. There are countless other historical examples of studied, deliberate neutrality resulting in complicity. (BTW whether Srebenica=Israel/Palestine or not is irrelevant, im talking about the general principle.)

There is a big difference between individual acts of atrocity, violence, and intolerance and the socio-economic/geopolitical background to those acts. To infer the righteousness or otherwise of a cause by extrapolating an individual act to be representative of the whole is a dangerous and self-limiting route. There is a world of difference between the Srebrenica situation where the inactivity that directly led to death is surely an unequivical wrong, and the overt act carried out by the Israelis that led to the deaths on the boats.

I suspect that the Israelis must have known exactly the reaction their incursion would receive, and they surely must have had the goal of polarising opinion further. It doesnt make the resolution of the wider position in any equitable fashion any easier though does it?

[Chuckie]

Funny how none of the considerable video footage from the scene bears this out, and only one or two eyewitnesses are making the claim.

As for the last part of your post....so they were carrying arms,then?

Considerable video footage edited by the Israeli government.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse, and it is evident you are unwilling or unable somehow to face the truth. The investigations should be interesting.

Israel should hand over their commandos to Turkey to be tried for murder.

That's all I have to say.

[hibsbollah]

To infer the righteousness or otherwise of a cause by extrapolating an individual act to be representative of the whole is a dangerous and self-limiting route. There is a world of difference between the Srebrenica situation where the inactivity that directly led to death is surely an unequivical wrong, and the overt act carried out by the Israelis that led to the deaths on the boats.

I'm a bit confused by this. Could you clarify?



I suspect that the Israelis must have known exactly the reaction their incursion would receive, and they surely must have had the goal of polarising opinion further. It doesnt make the resolution of the wider position in any equitable fashion any easier though does it?

I was wondering about this. Overall, Israel doesnt benefit from the furore, whether in terms of its relationships with the US, pro-Western Arab neighbours like Egypt, Jordan, especially Turkey, the UN. Ahmadinejad will have especially enjoyed it. It makes a pan-Arab consensus easier, has resulted in Egypt opening the border with Gaza etc. If it was a deliberate act by the Israeli Govt, it was either a) just very stupid or b) deliberately designed by Israeli hawks to ratchet up tensions, regardless of diplomatic self-interest.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ah won't interrupt this thread for 50p.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm a bit confused by this. Could you clarify?
I'll try. To my mind the localised decision of the Dutch peacekeepers was an act of omission that directly led to deaths that were preventable. I can't (and surely most people can't) justify tise local absence of intervention on the pretext or remaining neutral. There is a world of difference between being a force of balance/having a willingness to engage in open negotiation/discussion, and a kind of "politically correct" moral ambivalence.

[/quote] I was wondering about this. Overall, Israel doesnt benefit from the furore, whether in terms of its relationships with the US, pro-Western Arab neighbours like Egypt, Jordan, especially Turkey, the UN. Ahmadinejad will have especially enjoyed it. It makes a pan-Arab consensus easier, has resulted in Egypt opening the border with Gaza etc. If it was a deliberate act by the Israeli Govt, it was either a) just very stupid or b) deliberately designed by Israeli hawks to ratchet up tensions, regardless of diplomatic self-interest.[/QUOTE]

The more you think about it, the more it is scary. I truly hope it is "just" stupidity - the longer term ramifications of the alternative are very worrying.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The more you think about it, the more it is scary. I truly hope it is "just" stupidity - the longer term ramifications of the alternative are very worrying.

Do you mean that, one day, we are going to have to stand up to Israel in the same way as we stood up to Saddam?

[ballengeich]

Aside from the dispute over the legality and details of the tragic events on the convoy what constructive suggestions have posters to deal with the circumstances in which

a) the inhabitants of Gaza require aid and trade to alleviate a horrible humanitarian situation and develop their economy

b) the Israelis have a reasonable belief that an open border would be abused for the import of weapons which would be used to attack their communities.

Are there international organisations working to find a solution that can help Gaza's residents to obtain materials they need for their own lives without also allowing in things which would endanger Israeli security?

Cameron and Hague have today criticised both the blockade and the actions of Hamas. What suggestions do people have?

[CropleyWasGod]

Aside from the dispute over the legality and details of the tragic events on the convoy what constructive suggestions have posters to deal with the circumstances in which

a) the inhabitants of Gaza require aid and trade to alleviate a horrible humanitarian situation and develop their economy

b) the Israelis have a reasonable belief that an open border would be abused for the import of weapons which would be used to attack their communities.

Are there international organisations working to find a solution that can help Gaza's residents to obtain materials they need for their own lives without also allowing in things which would endanger Israeli security?

Cameron and Hague have today criticised both the blockade and the actions of Hamas. What suggestions do people have?

Call me naive, but is that not what the UN are for?

[Twa Cairpets]

Do you mean that, one day, we are going to have to stand up to Israel in the same way as we stood up to Saddam?

I dont know FR - depends very much on who "we" are, I suppose.

[Betty Boop]

June 2, 2010 "Plan Was to Kill Activists and Deter Future Convoys", Israeli MP's Night of Terror on Aid Ship

By JONATHAN COOK

Nazareth.

An Arab member of the Israeli parliament who was on board the international flotilla that was attacked on Monday as it tried to take humanitarian aid to Gaza accused Israel yesterday of intending to kill peace activists as a way to deter future convoys.

Haneen Zoubi said Israeli naval vessels had surrounded the flotilla’s flagship, the Mavi Marmara, and fired on it a few minutes before commandos abseiled from a helicopter directly above them.

Terrified passengers had been forced off the deck when water was sprayed at them. She said she was not aware of any provocation or resistance by the passengers, who were all unarmed.

She added that within minutes of the raid beginning, three bodies had been brought to the main room on the upper deck in which she and most other passengers were confined. Two had gunshot wounds to the head, in what she suggested had been executions.

Two other passengers slowly bled to death in the room after Israeli soldiers ignored messages in Hebrew she had held up at the window calling for medical help to save them. She said she saw seven other passengers seriously wounded.

“Israel had days to plan this military operation,” she told a press conference in Nazareth. “They wanted many deaths to terrorise us and to send a message that no future aid convoys should try to break the siege of Gaza.”

Released early yesterday by police, apparently because of her parliamentary immunity, she said she was speaking out while most of the hundreds of other peace activists were either being held by Israel for deportation or were under arrest.

[hibsbollah]

Obama's Vice President Joe Biden on primetime TV on the killings- 'It was no big deal':rolleyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/jun/02/joe-biden-israel-gaza-flotilla-raid

[khib70]

June 2, 2010 "Plan Was to Kill Activists and Deter Future Convoys", Israeli MP's Night of Terror on Aid Ship

By JONATHAN COOK

Nazareth.

An Arab member of the Israeli parliament who was on board the international flotilla that was attacked on Monday as it tried to take humanitarian aid to Gaza accused Israel yesterday of intending to kill peace activists as a way to deter future convoys.

Haneen Zoubi said Israeli naval vessels had surrounded the flotilla’s flagship, the Mavi Marmara, and fired on it a few minutes before commandos abseiled from a helicopter directly above them.

Terrified passengers had been forced off the deck when water was sprayed at them. She said she was not aware of any provocation or resistance by the passengers, who were all unarmed.

She added that within minutes of the raid beginning, three bodies had been brought to the main room on the upper deck in which she and most other passengers were confined. Two had gunshot wounds to the head, in what she suggested had been executions.

Two other passengers slowly bled to death in the room after Israeli soldiers ignored messages in Hebrew she had held up at the window calling for medical help to save them. She said she saw seven other passengers seriously wounded.

“Israel had days to plan this military operation,” she told a press conference in Nazareth. “They wanted many deaths to terrorise us and to send a message that no future aid convoys should try to break the siege of Gaza.”

Released early yesterday by police, apparently because of her parliamentary immunity, she said she was speaking out while most of the hundreds of other peace activists were either being held by Israel for deportation or were under arrest.
Interesting. So now the commandos fired before the helicopter incursion. A day ago she was saying they fired into the "sleeping" "peace activists" on deck from the helicopters. Now this lethal assault has become "spraying with water".

This woman is a liar, and not a very good one at that.

[EskbankHibby]

Link to story in Guardian referenced by an Israeli interviewed on Radio Scotland this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/02/flotilla-raid-turkish-jihadis-troops-israel-claims

[khib70]

Link to story in Guardian referenced by an Israeli interviewed on Radio Scotland this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/02/flotilla-raid-turkish-jihadis-troops-israel-claims
Aha, it's all coming out now. Never thought I'd say it, but well done to the Guardian for producing some of the first balanced coverage of this affair.

[hibsbollah]

Aha, it's all coming out now. Never thought I'd say it, but well done to the Guardian for producing some of the first balanced coverage of this affair.

Yes, the Israelis are certainly getting their propaganda machine into gear.

[Jack]

Interesting. So now the commandos fired before the helicopter incursion. A day ago she was saying they fired into the "sleeping" "peace activists" on deck from the helicopters. Now this lethal assault has become "spraying with water".

This woman is a liar, and not a very good one at that.

You know she is a liar because of course you were there, simultaneously on all the ships, and saw what was going on first hand? Maybe it was both, maybe they did other things as well.

So while I’d have expected non-lethal force to be used, and it would seem the case that at least some of the Israelis stayed vaguely within the law / the bounds of human decency, it would also appear there were murderous *******s solely intent on upping their kill rate.

It was after all a fleet of unarmed merchant ships, in international waters, and a common theme among the reports was the Israelis f***ed up big time, an opinion held even by most Israelis. “An opinion poll in Israel's Maariv newspaper showed that more than 60 percent of Israelis believed the interception was flawed operationally” (Reuters).

You’re an apologist for this crime and not a very good one.

[Betty Boop]

Interesting. So now the commandos fired before the helicopter incursion. A day ago she was saying they fired into the "sleeping" "peace activists" on deck from the helicopters. Now this lethal assault has become "spraying with water".

This woman is a liar, and not a very good one at that.

Ah I see, it is only the Israeli version of events that are to be believed. Israel has previous for attacking non-threatening ships in International waters, the USS Liberty. The survivors are still seeking justice.

[khib70]

Yes, the Israelis are certainly getting their propaganda machine into gear.
Eh, read the article. The quotes about martyrdom come from the Turkish press - not the biggest friend of Israel right now

[hibsbollah]

Eh, read the article. The quotes about martyrdom come from the Turkish press - not the biggest friend of Israel right now

Yes, they have some unsubstantiated quotes from brothers-in-law and the like.

What do you think the Israeli secret services do all day?

Seriously, i am willing to be openminded and judge things on their merits, but theres nothing in that report to change my mind.

[LiverpoolHibs]

More on the legality of the operation given the success of Israel's supporters/apologists in pushing the 'legal but ill-advised' line.

If the conflict between Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza strip is to be considered an International Armed Conflict a blockade is legal under the 1909 Laws of Naval Warfare and the San Remo Manual (though not if it amounts to the collective punishment of the populace under the blockade, which it does, and not if the effect on the civilian population is greater than the effect on the belligerant - undeniable, I'd have said).

However, if the conflict between Israel is to be considered a Non-International Armed Conflict there is no legal basis whatsoever for the imposition of a blockade. Not in the 1909 Laws of Naval Warfare nor in the San Remo Manual which only speaks, specifically, of conflicts between "belligerant States". There has never been an example of a blockade imposed during an NIAC - because there is no legal basis for doing so.

Now, as Israel does not recognise the State of Palestine - and still less a 'State of Gaza' - there is no way that laws concerning IAC can apply.

The claims based on the San Remo Manual, despite being really rather successful in leading the discourse in a certain direction over the last few days actually puts Israel in a couple of rather tricky positions. The first is that the official line is that Israel is not occupying Gaza (as that would be illegal) - but as it is, officially, not in occupation it can never claim that it is involved in an IAC. In order for the laws concerning an IAC to apply, Israel would have to concede that it was in occupation of the Gazan 'state' - but, of course, it can't do that as they would then be in contravention of the Geneva Convention. The second is that if Israel accepted everything that would turn the conflict from an NIAC to an IAC (which it will not do) it would have to, as I've previously mentioned, treat Hamas attacks on its combatants as legal acts (which it does not do), treat captured Hamas (and by extension PFLP, DFLP, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Matyrs Brigade etc.) militants as political prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention (which it does not do) and it would be in no position to complain to the 'international community' about Hamas attempting to procure rockets and other arms from Iran, Syria et. al.

Also, it would require them to recognise Hamas as a legitimate armed force and withdraw their designation as a terrorist organisation. By ****, the situations Israel gets itself into.


I was wondering about this. Overall, Israel doesnt benefit from the furore, whether in terms of its relationships with the US, pro-Western Arab neighbours like Egypt, Jordan, especially Turkey, the UN. Ahmadinejad will have especially enjoyed it. It makes a pan-Arab consensus easier, has resulted in Egypt opening the border with Gaza etc. If it was a deliberate act by the Israeli Govt, it was either a) just very stupid or b) deliberately designed by Israeli hawks to ratchet up tensions, regardless of diplomatic self-interest.

I've been wondering about this myself. I've heard it mooted in some quarters that this was a case of 'testing the water' over a possible (very limited) strike against Iran. An attempt to see what the world response would be to something like this and whether they'd be able to get away with something bigger. Ie. an attempt, as has been said, to polarise - followed by working out whether the polarisation put enough powerful states on their side to make an attack tenable. I'm not sure how convincing that is.

Norman Finkelstein's suggesting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB_CKL5h2_8) that Israel has gone from employing the Nixonian 'madman theory';

H.R. Haldeman: "I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, 'for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry - and he has his hand on the nuclear button' - and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."

To descending into actual madness.

Given what I've written above, who knows...


Aside from the dispute over the legality and details of the tragic events on the convoy what constructive suggestions have posters to deal with the circumstances in which

a) the inhabitants of Gaza require aid and trade to alleviate a horrible humanitarian situation and develop their economy

b) the Israelis have a reasonable belief that an open border would be abused for the import of weapons which would be used to attack their communities.

Are there international organisations working to find a solution that can help Gaza's residents to obtain materials they need for their own lives without also allowing in things which would endanger Israeli security?

Cameron and Hague have today criticised both the blockade and the actions of Hamas. What suggestions do people have?

I'd suggest there are three genuine options:

1) Israel accepts the permanent, never-off-the-table, Hamas offer of a tahadiya (a cooling off period)leading to negotiations to establish a hudna (a renewable ten-year ceasefire)and a two-state settlement based on the 1967 borders. So, Israel could stop continuing with Hamas its rejectionist approach to negotiations with the Palestinians which it began with the PLO.

2) Israel formally annexes East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and formally declares that all its inhabitants have full citizenship and full civil, political and religious rights in the new state. Some form of 'Truth and Reconciliation' council along the South African lines is established and moves are made to abide by international law and institute the full right of return for Palestinian refugees.

3) The status quo.

I would go for option two, but option one would certainly be an improvement.


Aha, it's all coming out now. Never thought I'd say it, but well done to the Guardian for producing some of the first balanced coverage of this affair.

Erm, was I the only one who thought that was meant to be largely tongue-in-cheek?

Oh, and are we going to get an explanation of how Hamas is occupying Gaza?

[Jack]

During all this, while seeing there were some pretty well qualified activists, I thought they would have been relatively young, fit, more able to present a ‘danger’ activists.

Well, one of the injured is a retired linguistics professor, age 64, beaten up after being pulled from the water; others are likewise in their 60s.

Oh! how brave these young stud Israeli commandos must feel after beating up a bunch of pensioners. Their families must be truely proud of their heroic sons.

[Betty Boop]

Former US Ambassador Peck speaks about the incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGb01ehPJmk

[khib70]

During all this, while seeing there were some pretty well qualified activists, I thought they would have been relatively young, fit, more able to present a ‘danger’ activists.

Well, one of the injured is a retired linguistics professor, age 64, beaten up after being pulled from the water; others are likewise in their 60s.

Oh! how brave these young stud Israeli commandos must feel after beating up a bunch of pensioners. Their families must be truely proud of their heroic sons.
I presume you're referring to these pensioners.....

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

[LiverpoolHibs]

I presume you're referring to these pensioners.....

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

Jeez, they really are running on empty.

Lest anyone thinks recent Israeli brutality against foreign nationals has been confined to illegal commando raids on ships attempting to breach an illegal naval blockade. A 21 year-old American art-student named Emily Henochowicz currently studying in Jerusalem was shot in the face (http://palsolidarity.org/2010/05/12604/) with a tear gas canister, leaving her blind in one eye, her jaw wired shut and metal plates inserted in her head. She was peacefully protesting the assault on the Mavi Marmara at the Qalandiya checkpoint outside Jerusalem.

Presumably she made them fire projectiles at the heads of protestors. Cos that's what happens.

This 'we regret it but they made us do it' meme, in case anyone isn't aware, isn't a new approach by the Israeli P.R. people. Golda Meir famously stated that the one thing she could never forgive the Palestinians for was, "For forcing us to kill their children". It's just been revived wholesale in the last few days.

[Jack]

I presume you're referring to these pensioners.....

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


Aye very good, no pensioners there, about a dozen, poorly equipped to defend themselves, civilians there though; broken bottle - ringed; sling shot – ringed.

When are the Israelis going to release the footage with;

:confused: the gun boats – ringed

:confused: assault helicopters – ringed

:confused: well armed and well protected combat fit commandos – ringed

:confused: assault rifles - ringed

:confused: pistols – ringed

:confused: the dozens of injured – ringed

:confused: the 10 very seriously injured – ringed

:confused: the 30+ Israeli bullets that hit civilians – ringed

:confused: the 8 fatal bullets – ringed

:confused: the 8 body bags ringed?

Any idea?


No its these sexagenarians I’m referring to, link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/02/MNBU1DON11.DTL).

[lyonhibs]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece

Interesting piece about the apparently murky past of the organisation running the aid ship.

There was an interesting piece in the Times Opinion about events as well, but I can't get to that online.

Israel has dropped a major bollock on this one, and there should be an external, UN-ratified investigation whose findings are taken on board by the Israeli's, but there's a couple of pieces out there that appear to cast a slightly different light on the motives (past if not present) of at least some of the "aid workers" on the boat.

Not that that excuses the use of lethal force against people wielding plastic deck chairs, the odd iron bar and apparently - shock, horror - marbles!!!

[Betty Boop]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece

Interesting piece about the apparently murky past of the organisation running the aid ship.

There was an interesting piece in the Times Opinion about events as well, but I can't get to that online.

Israel has dropped a major bollock on this one, and there should be an external, UN-ratified investigation whose findings are taken on board by the Israeli's, but there's a couple of pieces out there that appear to cast a slightly different light on the motives (past if not present) of at least some of the "aid workers" on the boat.

Not that that excuses the use of lethal force against people wielding plastic deck chairs, the odd iron bar and apparently - shock, horror - marbles!!!

The Times is a pro-Israeli paper owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International.

[Betty Boop]

Thursday, June 3, 2010
ISTANBUL - Agence France-Presse

Eight Turks and a U.S. national of Turkish origin were killed in an Israeli raid on Gaza-bound aid ships, Anatolia news agency reported Thursday.

The nationalities of the dead were determined after post-mortem examinations at a forensic institute in Istanbul, where the bodies were flown early Thursday, Anatolia said.

The nine activists who died in an Israeli raid on aid ships bound for Gaza were shot dead, the Anatolia news agency reported.

Forensic experts in Istanbul found bullet marks on the bodies of all the victims.

The experts said the exact circumstances of the activists' deaths would become clear in a balistics examination that would take about a month to complete.

An official from Humanitarian Relief Foundation, or İHH, NGO that organized the flotilla to Gaza, identified the U.S. citizen as 19-year-old Furkan Doğan, originally from the central Turkish town of Kayseri. Doğan had four bullet wounds to the head and one to the chest, Ömer Yağmur of İHH, told Anatolia.

The 19 wounded activists deported from Israel were also suffering from gun wounds, the chief doctor of the hospital in Ankara treating them said.

"The patients generally have serious injuries to their chests, abdomens and limbs. What we have is mostly gun wounds," Metin Doğan said in televised remarks.

[hibsbollah]

I've been wondering about this myself. I've heard it mooted in some quarters that this was a case of 'testing the water' over a possible (very limited) strike against Iran. An attempt to see what the world response would be to something like this and whether they'd be able to get away with something bigger. Ie. an attempt, as has been said, to polarise - followed by working out whether the polarisation put enough powerful states on their side to make an attack tenable. I'm not sure how convincing that is.


If I was an Israeli hawk and I wanted to 'test the water', the last target I would choose would be anything to do with Turkey. Not a good target bearing in mind their position in NATO.

I remember when Obama was sworn in one of the first foreign trips he made was to Ankara, after Hilary signed a few arms deals and went on Turkish talkshows. It looked like Turkey was becoming Obama's key foreign policy objective. Its got the biggest army in NATO (excluding USA), nuclear weapons and US air force bases, perfect strategically for access to oil rich neighbours etc.

Now after Mavi Marmara the Turks are marching in the streets, the Turkish Government demanding repercussions on Israel, and what does the US vice president do to minimise tensions between these three key allies? Say the incident (and by association, the Turkish response) was 'no big deal':rolleyes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/jun/02/joe-biden-israel-gaza-flotilla-raid

There was also the 'Armenian genocide' row in March
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8550765.stm

Turkish-US relations could get worse before they get better.

[Beefster]

The Times is a pro-Israeli paper owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International.

So the story is nonsense? If so, which parts?

I've seen stories in the Times that were very sympathetic to the Palestinians (and Doddie linked to one earlier). How does that work in a pro-Israeli paper?

[khib70]

The Times is a pro-Israeli paper owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International.
Well, that's us told then. You guys really are pathetic sometimes. Let's not bother about the content of the article, let's just mug the messenger.

Since I read the Times every day and you obviously don't, I can say quite unequivocally that it's not "pro Israeli". It has pro Israel writers and writers of a different persuasion. But obviously we'd get a much more balanced picture if we stuck to "Socialist Worker".

[lyonhibs]

The Times is a pro-Israeli paper owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International.

And I presume all the links provided elsewhere are from entirely neutral sources, and that therefore their content is to be trusted above and beyond that of The Times??

I didn't say The Times was to be taken as a "God up on high" source, but then again, neither should any of the other Youtube/paper links/quotes.

What about the actual content of the link - is it all horrible Murdoch gobbledygook, or does anyone else not find it in the slightest bit interesting?

[Betty Boop]

Well, that's us told then. You guys really are pathetic sometimes. Let's not bother about the content of the article, let's just mug the messenger.

Since I read the Times every day and you obviously don't, I can say quite unequivocally that it's not "pro Israeli". It has pro Israel writers and writers of a different persuasion. But obviously we'd get a much more balanced picture if we stuck to "Socialist Worker".

From the Middle East Monitor-

Most of the mainstream British media takes a pro-Israel line. Rupert Murdoch, whose News International media empire controls between 30-40% of the British newspaper press, makes no secret of his pro-Israeli sympathies. Indeed one well-regarded Times correspondent, Sam Kiley, took the extraordinary step of actually resigning from the paper because of interference with his work on the Middle East.

In addition to the Murdoch press, the Telegraph Media Group and Express Newspapers have tended to support Israel. So has Associated Newspapers, though to a less obvious extent. There are, however, two important media organisations, which have consistently sought to report fairly from the Middle East and present the Palestinian point of view with equal force to the pro-Israeli government line. These are The Guardian and the BBC. These two organisations have been subjected to ceaseless pressure and at times harassment both from the Israeli government itself and from pressure groups.

[marinello59]

From the Middle East Monitor-

Most of the mainstream British media takes a pro-Israel line. Rupert Murdoch, whose News International media empire controls between 30-40% of the British newspaper press, makes no secret of his pro-Israeli sympathies. Indeed one well-regarded Times correspondent, Sam Kiley, took the extraordinary step of actually resigning from the paper because of interference with his work on the Middle East.

In addition to the Murdoch press, the Telegraph Media Group and Express Newspapers have tended to support Israel. So has Associated Newspapers, though to a less obvious extent. There are, however, two important media organisations, which have consistently sought to report fairly from the Middle East and present the Palestinian point of view with equal force to the pro-Israeli government line. These are The Guardian and the BBC. These two organisations have been subjected to ceaseless pressure and at times harassment both from the Israeli government itself and from pressure groups.

Case rested then. The Guardian and the Beeb are the only sources to be quoted on anything. Ever. Fact. End of. :agree:
Who is the Middle East monitor by the way? Does he/she have the same authority as milk monitors used to have?

[khib70]

Case rested then. The Guardian and the Beeb are the only sources to be quoted on anything. Ever. Fact. End of. :agree:
Who is the Middle East monitor by the way? Does he/she have the same authority as milk monitors used to have?
Exactly.:agree: But don't forget Al-Jazeera, and al Aqsa TV.

And I recommend anyone to take a look at the blatantly pro-Palestinian Middle East Monitor site that BB is quoting above and decide how impartial that is. Fact is, for some people true=what they want to hear.

At least BICOM and Palwatch are openly and avowedly pro Israel. MEM's posing as an "independent" body is just a joke.

[hibsbollah]

Almost all stories in the Western mainstream press are loosely 'true', in that the facts are usually correct. Its the emphasis thats put on stories that makes the difference.

And on The Guardian, it has a sizeable Jewish metropolitan readership (wander about Golders Green and bits of Manchester on a Saturday and you'll see its the paper of choice) and there are regular pro-Israeli correspondents writing on it.

[khib70]

Almost all stories in the Western mainstream press are loosely 'true', in that the facts are usually correct. Its the emphasis thats put on stories that makes the difference.

And on The Guardian, it has a sizeable Jewish metropolitan readership (wander about Golders Green and bits of Manchester on a Saturday and you'll see its the paper of choice) and there are regular pro-Israeli correspondents writing on it.

To be fair, all of this is true. Every newspaper has a viewpoint, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's equally fair to say that the Times has regularly featured articles critical of Israel.

This, however, should concern everyone....

http://www.scmagazineuk.com/jewish-chronicle-confirms-that-it-was-hit-by-a-denial-of-service-attack-on-monday-following-gaza-flotilla-incident/article/171531/

[Jack]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece

Interesting piece about the apparently murky past of the organisation running the aid ship.

There was an interesting piece in the Times Opinion about events as well, but I can't get to that online.

Israel has dropped a major bollock on this one, and there should be an external, UN-ratified investigation whose findings are taken on board by the Israeli's, but there's a couple of pieces out there that appear to cast a slightly different light on the motives (past if not present) of at least some of the "aid workers" on the boat.

Not that that excuses the use of lethal force against people wielding plastic deck chairs, the odd iron bar and apparently - shock, horror - marbles!!!

The link to the Times article is dead. So I looked for it by browsing the Times site (I read the Times too quite often :greengrin). The headline link is still there in the Middle East section but that link is also dead. :cool2:

IIRC the article was mainly about how the flotilla came about and how there were strong links between its funding and that of the election campaign of the current Turkish Prime Minister.

It also said, in the last paragraph or so, that the funding [now???] came from such a wide diversity of backgrounds it was impossible to tar the organisation with an accusation that it could be solely anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic or pro-Gaza or pro-Palestine.

[Betty Boop]

And I presume all the links provided elsewhere are from entirely neutral sources, and that therefore their content is to be trusted above and beyond that of The Times??

I didn't say The Times was to be taken as a "God up on high" source, but then again, neither should any of the other Youtube/paper links/quotes.

What about the actual content of the link - is it all horrible Murdoch gobbledygook, or does anyone else not find it in the slightest bit interesting?

If the IHH the Turkish charity has links to terrorist groups as stated in the article, I wonder why the Israelis were quick to release them?

[Beefster]

From the Middle East Monitor-

Most of the mainstream British media takes a pro-Israel line. Rupert Murdoch, whose News International media empire controls between 30-40% of the British newspaper press, makes no secret of his pro-Israeli sympathies. Indeed one well-regarded Times correspondent, Sam Kiley, took the extraordinary step of actually resigning from the paper because of interference with his work on the Middle East.

In addition to the Murdoch press, the Telegraph Media Group and Express Newspapers have tended to support Israel. So has Associated Newspapers, though to a less obvious extent. There are, however, two important media organisations, which have consistently sought to report fairly from the Middle East and present the Palestinian point of view with equal force to the pro-Israeli government line. These are The Guardian and the BBC. These two organisations have been subjected to ceaseless pressure and at times harassment both from the Israeli government itself and from pressure groups.

From their website:


The use or misuse of information was always central to the conflict in the Middle East. There is an urgent need for supporters of the Palestinian cause in particular to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination. This requires well organized, focused and targeted operations. Such initiatives are virtually non-existent in the West today.

The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) was established to fill this gap. While there are several outstanding media monitoring networks operating mainly through the internet their main activity is invariably confined to exposing the flaws in existing coverage.

Dismissing a source as biased without dealing with the points and using your own biased source as justification is pure hypocrisy.

[LiverpoolHibs]

If I was an Israeli hawk and I wanted to 'test the water', the last target I would choose would be anything to do with Turkey. Not a good target bearing in mind their position in NATO.

I remember when Obama was sworn in one of the first foreign trips he made was to Ankara, after Hilary signed a few arms deals and went on Turkish talkshows. It looked like Turkey was becoming Obama's key foreign policy objective. Its got the biggest army in NATO (excluding USA), nuclear weapons and US air force bases, perfect strategically for access to oil rich neighbours etc.

Now after Mavi Marmara the Turks are marching in the streets, the Turkish Government demanding repercussions on Israel, and what does the US vice president do to minimise tensions between these three key allies? Say the incident (and by association, the Turkish response) was 'no big deal':rolleyes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/jun/02/joe-biden-israel-gaza-flotilla-raid

There was also the 'Armenian genocide' row in March
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8550765.stm

Turkish-US relations could get worse before they get better.

Agreed, but strangely there's some suggestion now that the Mavi Marmara was re-flagged to the Comoros Islands just prior to setting sail. God knows what that's all about.

On the Times article:

Firstly, it's pretty pointless to dismiss something as pro-Israel or Zionist without establishing whether the reports have much worth. Of course News International publications are going to be, broadly, supportive of Israel - but that's not really the point. Moving on, there's this strange account that's been accepted (as a result of the IDF released videos) where the first piece of Israeli involvement with the convoy was the commandos rappelling onto the deck from the helicopter. This is a complete lie. Every witness account states that tear gas and stun grenades (incidentally these are the stun grenades that are witnessed being thrown at the commandos despite the bizarre uncorroborated claim that the passengers were carrying them - the commandos threw them and the passengers attempted to throw them back before they went off - oh the humanity!) were fired onto the boat from the vessels surrounding it prior to the assault from the helicopter. I don't think even the Israelis are claiming that the first contact between the passengers of the Mavi Marmara and the IDF forces was with the commandos landing on the top-deck from the air - they just release videos in which this is the first contact and allow people completely devoid of any critical faculties to assume that this was the case. Pretty much every piece of video of the ecvent needs to be treated with a degree of scepticism - but this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR2GQQBGTlY) seems to suggest a passenger was killed prior to the IDF boarding from the helicopter.

Furthermore, the IHH are not a deignated terrorist organisation and have no links to al-Qaeda (as confirmed (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/06/142591.htm) by the U.S. State Department spokesman). The only accusation that has any merit is that they have met with Hamas. So what?

And, of course, most of this is besides the point and it's a success in itself for Israel and its apologists to have shifted the discourse in this manner.

In other news, guess what, Netanyahu is a ****ing liar. Despite the claims that the raid was somehow 'bungled', the exact course of the operation was detailed in Israeli papers (http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/the-flotilla-raid-was-not-bungled-the-idf-detailed-its-violent-strategy-in-advance/) days before. This is the second lie that Max Blumenthal has uncovered - the first related to the Times article, that the people on board the boat had links to al-Qaeda (http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/) which they've been forced to retract. Lies heaped upon lies. (Not to mention the quickly dropped claim that the activists on board had guns)

Antony Lerman on Israel's success in the P.R. war. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/04/israeli-pr-machine-gaza-flotilla-media-battle) Excellent article.

All of which contributes to a few questions; firstly, if Israel thinks everything is out in the open, clear, above board and legal about this event why are they so dead-set against an independent inquiry? Secondly, away from legalities, moralities and everything else (all of which is in the favour of the activists and not the Israelis) - why did they choose the to stop the boat where they did (ie. outside the - illegal - blockade zone in international waters) and why did they choose an incredibly violent manner in which to stop the boat (considering that they've stopped boats without boarding them on numerous occasions in the past)? And finally, why were the cameras and video equipment of those on board confiscated and not returned to them?

Oh and Ha'aretz is carrying some really good op-ed pieces on the raid, just to give an example of dissenting voices within Israel.

Doron Rosenblum - Israel's Commando Complex (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israel-s-commando-complex-1.294206)

Anat Lapidot-Firilla - Who's Really Under Siege? (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/who-s-really-under-siege-1.294147)

Allegra Pacheco - Hobbled By Political Constraints (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/hobbled-by-political-constraints-1.294149)

Ari Shavit - The Flotilla Failure (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-flotilla-failure-1.293884)

Gideon Levy - Netanyahu Was Right (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-was-right-1.293886)

Merav Michaeli - Nothing to Investigate: Everyone Knows What Was Wrong... (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/nothing-to-investigate-everyone-knows-what-was-wrong-about-the-flotilla-attack-1.293885)

Aluf Benn - It's Time For Real Disengagement (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/it-s-time-for-real-disengagement-1.293671)

Israeli socialists and peace activists protest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNFc665ka34&) the massacre, including a couple of short speeches by the ever fantastic Hadash M.P. Dov Khenin. Histadrut yet again brings shame on themselves and the trade union movement as a whole by backing Israeli actions.

N.B. the MV Rachel Corrie has apparently docked to allow journalists and 'high-profile' figures to join it before proceeding to Gaza after an alleged Israeli sabotage of radar and communication systems.

[hibsbollah]

That Anthony Lerman article is very good. Particularly interesting about the press briefing drawn up by Israel prior to the event, (and which mentions its 'sorrow' at the predicted and therefore assumed casualties).

[hibsbollah]

Turkish autopsy results...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results)

Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range

Exclusive: Nine Turkish men on board Mavi Marmara were shot a total of 30 times, autopsy results reveal

Israel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/israel) was tonight under pressure to allow an independent inquiry into its assault on the Gaza (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gaza) aid flotilla after autopsy results on the bodies of those killed, obtained by the Guardian, revealed they were peppered with 9mm bullets, many fired at close range.
Nine Turkish men on board the Mavi Marmara were shot a total of 30 times and five were killed by gunshot wounds to the head, according to the vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine, which carried out the autopsies for the Turkish ministry of justice today.

The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.

The findings emerged as more survivors gave their accounts of the raids. Ismail Patel, the chairman of Leicester-based pro-Palestinian group Friends of al-Aqsa, who returned to Britain today, told how he witnessed some of the fatal shootings and claimed that Israel had operated a "shoot to kill policy".

He calculated that during the bloodiest part of the assault, Israeli commandos shot one person every minute. One man was fatally shot in the back of the head just two feet in front him and another was shot once between the eyes. He added that as well as the fatally wounded, 48 others were suffering from gunshot wounds and six activists remained missing, suggesting the death toll may increase.

The new information about the manner and intensity of the killings undermines Israel's insistence that its soldiers opened fire only in self defence and in response to attacks by the activists.
"Given the very disturbing evidence which contradicts the line from the Israeli media and suggests that Israelis have been very selective in the way they have addressed this, there is now an overwhelming need for an international inquiry," said Andrew Slaughter MP, a member of the all party group on Britain and Palestine.

Israel said tonight the number of bullets found in the bodies did not alter the fact that the soldiers were acting in self defence. "The only situation when a soldier shot was when it was a clearly a life-threatening situation," said a spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London. "Pulling the trigger quickly can result in a few bullets being in the same body, but does not change the fact they were in a life-threatening situation."
Protesters from across the country will tomorrow march from Downing Street to the Israeli embassy to call for Israel to be held to account for its actions.

Earlier this week, William Hague, the foreign secretary, said the government would call for an inquiry under international auspices if Israel refuses to establish an independent inquiry, including an international presence.
The autopsy results were released as the last of the Turkish victims was buried.
Dr Haluk Ince, the chairman of the council of forensic medicine in Istanbul, said that in only one case was there a single bullet wound, to the forehead from a distant shot, while every other victim suffered multiple wounds. "All [the bullets] were intact. This is important in a forensic context. When a bullet strikes another place it comes into the body deformed. If it directly comes into the body, the bullet is all intact."

He added that all but one of the bullets retrieved from the bodies came from 9mm rounds. Of the other round, he said: "It was the first time we have seen this kind of material used in firearms. It was just a container including many types of pellets usually used in shotguns. It penetrated the head region in the temple and we found it intact in the brain."
An unnamed Israeli commando, who purportedly led the raid on the Mavi Marmara, today told Israeli news website Ynet News that he shot at a protester who approached him with a knife. "I was in front of a number of people with knives and clubs," he said. "I cocked my weapon when I saw that one was coming towards me with a knife drawn and I fired once. Then another 20 people came at me from all directions and threw me down to the deck below …

"We knew they were peace activists. Though they wanted to break the Gaza blockade, we thought we'd encounter passive resistance, perhaps verbal resistance – we didn't expect this. Everyone wanted to kill us. We encountered terrorists who wanted to kill us and we did everything we could to prevent unnecessary injury."
Tonight the Rachel Corrie, an Irish vessel crewed by supporters of the Free Gaza movement, remained on course for Gaza. Yossi Gal, director general at the Israeli foreign ministry, said Israel had "no desire for a confrontation" but asked for the ship to dock at Ashdod, not Gaza.
"If the ship decides to sail the port of Ashdod, then we will ensure its safe arrival and will not board it," he said.

[MountcastleHibs]

They've boarded another aid ship this morning. Don't know the back story to this one so will reserve judgement, but surely it is basically state run piracy?

[ballengeich]

I'd suggest there are three genuine options:

1) Israel accepts the permanent, never-off-the-table, Hamas offer of a tahadiya (a cooling off period)leading to negotiations to establish a hudna (a renewable ten-year ceasefire)and a two-state settlement based on the 1967 borders. So, Israel could stop continuing with Hamas its rejectionist approach to negotiations with the Palestinians which it began with the PLO.

The two state solution's a long-term goal. I was asking a shorter term question.

2) Israel formally annexes East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and formally declares that all its inhabitants have full citizenship and full civil, political and religious rights in the new state. Some form of 'Truth and Reconciliation' council along the South African lines is established and moves are made to abide by international law and institute the full right of return for Palestinian refugees.

I assume you support this in the belief that the combined entity would immediately or soon cease to have a Jewish majority. I suspect you'd get the religious in both communities pumping away nineteen to the dozen in an attempt to outbreed the other lot. Anyway you know it won't happen.

3) The status quo.



The question I was trying to raise is how can Israel be given confidence that lifting the blockade and opening Gaza's borders would not be used to allow some groups in Gaza to import weapons in order to mount future attacks on its territory and people.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I have not interrupted this thread and no money has changed hands.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The two state solution's a long-term goal. I was asking a shorter term question.

But that isn't anything to do with a two-state solution. Israel could accept the Hamas tahadiya/hudna offer tomorow if it wanted to. All it would have to do would be to end the de jure occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and the de facto occupation of the Gaza Strip, return the Golan Heights to Syria and accept U.N.G.A.R. 194 (including the acceptance of a Palestinian state and the legality of the Palestinian right of return).

This may seem like a lot, but it would just, for the first time in decades, place Israel in a position where they are not in violation of international law. Which would be a welcome change, I'm sure.

The point that people seem to constantly miss is that the millitary operations in which Hamas and other groups engage aren't justified (ie. their justification, not an objective moral or legal justification - personally I think the rocket attacks are morally indefensible and tactically bankrupt) by the very existence of Israel but by the policies which Israel institutes in violation of Palestinian rights.


I assume you support this in the belief that the combined entity would immediately or soon cease to have a Jewish majority. I suspect you'd get the religious in both communities pumping away nineteen to the dozen in an attempt to outbreed the other lot. Anyway you know it won't happen.

No, I support it because I think it's the most equitable solution to the conflict, because it directly coheres with my political principles and because I'm not a fan of nations willfully violating international law (and morality) with impunity for their entire history. Why would I support it because I wished to see a Jewish minority?


The question I was trying to raise is how can Israel be given confidence that lifting the blockade and opening Gaza's borders would not be used to allow some groups in Gaza to import weapons in order to mount future attacks on its territory and people.

The U.N. have said they will inspect goods entering Gaza and Hamas have accepted this in principle.

P.S. What can the world be doing to gain Palestinian confidence that Israel is not importing weapons to be used to mount future attacks on the Palestinian people and their territory (or, indeed, the confidence of the Lebanese or Iranian people - especially considering Israel has just sent three nuclear subs to the Persian Gulf to position themselves just outside Iranian waters)?

P.P.S. If ever there was evidence of a nation's establishment going completely over the cliff both in terms of sanity and morality...

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/8900

Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev tells the Guardian: "I called my kids in to watch it because I thought it was funny."

There really are few human being more disgusting than Mark Regev.

[(((Fergus)))]

The question I was trying to raise is how can Israel be given confidence that lifting the blockade and opening Gaza's borders would not be used to allow some groups in Gaza to import weapons in order to mount future attacks on its territory and people.

The problem is that every time Israel has withdrawn from territory - southern Lebanon, PA administered areas of Judea and Samaria (where roads are closed to Jews by the way) and now Gaza - these areas have been used to attack Israel from. Concession on the part of Israel is perceived as a sign of Israel's weakness and further encourages attack. Since the checkpoints have been reduced in Judea and Samaria recently there has been a number of terrorist attacks which have used the roads concerned (one policeman was killed yesterday and three others wounded).

The bottom line is that there is a section of the Arab population that is a) totally opposed* to Jewish sovereignty in any part of Israel and b) dominates the rest of Arab society through violence/intimidation. Israel, to exist, has to hold these people at arm's length while at the same time trying to allow ordinary law-abiding Arabs to get on with their lives within what is basically a state of war.

Those who advocate a total lifting of the blockade should at the same time specify a price that Gaza would have to pay if that territory is used once more to attack Israel, e.g., Israeli reoccupation and expulsion of Hamas. If conditions of this sort were made, I'm sure Israel would agree to end the blockade. (Not sure whether Egypt would though, especially since an expulsion of Hamas may be in their direction.)

* Why are they totally opposed? Seems to be something specific to Jews since they had no problem with the Ottomans, the British, the Egyptians and the Jordanians ruling land in the area now administered by Israel.

One possible reason is that the Jews for centuries have been regarded as a lower class of human being by the Muslims in particular. Certainly 'the occupation' is not the only or even the main reason since the Arabs have been attacking peacefully acquired Jewish property and killing Jews since long before 1948 never mind 1967.

While it is a source of shame that these "dhimmis" have not only gained sovereignty over land once conquered by the muslim armies, but also transformed it from being the poorest area in the region to by far the richest, there is another important reason for the pre-Independence violence towards Jews - one that was much more mundane: the Arab elites (some, but not all! http://palestinepostings.blogspot.com/2006_12_31_archive.html ) were fearful of losing the old feudal system in which the peasants were kept as wage slaves. Jewish immigration from the 1880s began a process of agricultural and industrial revolution that filled the vacuum left by the implosion of this unsustainable model (why would Arab landlords have sold land to Jews if their system was successful?). Since the Jewish model was thriving and the Arab one was not, inevitably the Jews would have peacefully acquired more and more land as well as attracting Arab peasants into better paying agricultural jobs as well as the industries in the cities and ports - i.e., out of the clutches of the feudal lords. Since this development could not be combated economically, it had to be combated militarily. Unfortunately for the Arabs terrorists, the Jews were better ultimately organised in this respect too.

The Palestinian refugees are the modern equivalent of the wage-slave farmers and provide the modern Arab elites with the constituency through which they can maintain their wealth - through aid form the EU, etc., etc - and maintain the pressure on Israel through blaming Israel for the plight of the refugees. This ignoring the fact that Israel successfully integrated a larger number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the creation of the State of Israel but were targeted regardless. These people and their descendants now account for just over half of Israel's Jewish population.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I was inteding on replying to this slightly more civilly than I have been of late but it's just so replete with complete and utter bollocks that it's not really possible for me to do so. Seriously, Fergus, if you're going to posit yourself as some king of expert on the conflict (as you increasingly seem to be doing) it really would be best if you could widen you're reading from whatever utterly bonkers literature is informing the arguments and conclusions of this post - apparently a very unhealthy diet of Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes, Joan Peters and Pamella Geller. It really is very strange that there is a substantial section of humanity that finds itself in a position where they are willing to completely butcher historical reality in the service of their favourite little ethnocracy.


The problem is that every time Israel has withdrawn from territory - southern Lebanon, PA administered areas of Judea and Samaria (where roads are closed to Jews by the way) and now Gaza - these areas have been used to attack Israel from. Concession on the part of Israel is perceived as a sign of Israel's weakness and further encourages attack. Since the checkpoints have been reduced in Judea and Samaria recently there has been a number of terrorist attacks which have used the roads concerned (one policeman was killed yesterday and three others wounded).

The bottom line is that there is a section of the Arab population that is a) totally opposed* to Jewish sovereignty in any part of Israel and b) dominates the rest of Arab society through violence/intimidation. Israel, to exist, has to hold these people at arm's length while at the same time trying to allow ordinary law-abiding Arabs to get on with their lives within what is basically a state of war.

There's such an astonishing amount of nonsense here that it again begs the question of whether you're lying in an attempt to convince people of your position or if you're just dreadfully ill-informed. A bit of both, perhaps.

So you either know that Israelis are banned from using Palestinian roads in the West Bank on the order of the I.D.F. and are just trying to continue the bizarre intimation that the conflict has something to do with anti-Semitism amongst Palestinians through complete lies; or you're so badly informed that you didn't bother finding out if your pointless 'by-the-way' was accurate before posting it. Pretty stupid either way. 'By the way' there are roads in the Occupied West Bank which are legally maintained by 'one side' purely for the use of 'one side'. Can you guess which?

I'm sure those reading will be thoroughly shocked that there is a 'section of Palestinian society' opposed to the existence of Israel. The P.L.O. may have accepted the 'right of Israel to exist in peace and security' but the Palestinian people, collectively, from the most moderate peace-seeker to the most militant Islamic Jihadist will never accept Israel's 'right to exist'. And, as shocking a thing as this apparently is to say (I'm not sure why though), I see no convincing argument as to why they should be expected to accept this. To accept Israel's 'right to exist' is to accept the validity of the Zionist project - a project that was fundamentally based in the desire/need to ethnically cleanse the native Palestinian people from the land of Israel. It's been one of Israel's greatest achievements to make people think that it is outrageous/anti-Semitic that the Palestinians refuse to concede this point; I'm not exactly sure how they managed it. It's amazing that people think it's necessary for a group of people to legitimise their own ethnic cleansing in order to gain the possibility of ending their occupation. (but the point, of course, is Israel knows this will never be accepted).

Would people have been shocked/disgusted at Native Americans collectively objecting to a nascent 'America' sixty-five years after their ethnic cleansing began? What about the indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand and southern Africa?

The 'bottom line' is two-fold; firstly, as astonishing as the P.L.O. 'admission' was, the Palestinians will never accept the legitimacy of their own ethnic cleansing and hence Israel's 'right to exist' (as an aside, what an utterly bizarre notion it is for any nation to have a 'right to exist'). Secondly, every Palestinian faction from the collaborators of Fatah and the P.L.O. to the 'rejectionist' groups - both secular (P.F.L.P., D.F.L.P.) and Islamist (Hamas, Islamic Jihad) have formulated some form of justification for the 'actual existence' of Israel as a body to be negotiated with if not the 'right' of this body to exist. If you're actually interested in serious discussion on this matter rather than thick-headed apologetics for oppression and il.gov press releases, read the U.S.I.P.'s special report on Hamas and look at the amazing pragmatic lengths they've gone to to create an Islamic justification for peace with Israel. You might just be surprised. Israel could end the violence tomorow and re-position itself in line with international law. No-one, not even Hamas, is stopping it from doing so.


Those who advocate a total lifting of the blockade should at the same time specify a price that Gaza would have to pay if that territory is used once more to attack Israel, e.g., Israeli reoccupation and expulsion of Hamas. If conditions of this sort were made, I'm sure Israel would agree to end the blockade. (Not sure whether Egypt would though, especially since an expulsion of Hamas may be in their direction.)

As a philosophical exercise, is there any chance we could get to the bottom of your curious moral relativist approach to the poitical use-of-force? What is the logical basis for your position that grants Israel a monopoly on violence within Palestine/Eretz Israel? For example, what rationale are you using that, in your mind, legitimises killing twelve people delivering aid to a part of the world that is in the midst of an acute humanitarian crisis yet delegitimises an attack by a group of people on an armed force explicitly engaged in the illegal occupation of their land? This is a genuine question, what universal moral principles are you applying here?

[LiverpoolHibs]

* Why are they totally opposed? Seems to be something specific to Jews since they had no problem with the Ottomans, the British, the Egyptians and the Jordanians ruling land in the area now administered by Israel.

One possible reason is that the Jews for centuries have been regarded as a lower class of human being by the Muslims in particular. Certainly 'the occupation' is not the only or even the main reason since the Arabs have been attacking peacefully acquired Jewish property and killing Jews since long before 1948 never mind 1967.

While it is a source of shame that these "dhimmis" have not only gained sovereignty over land once conquered by the muslim armies, but also transformed it from being the poorest area in the region to by far the richest, there is another important reason for the pre-Independence violence towards Jews - one that was much more mundane: the Arab elites (some, but not all! http://palestinepostings.blogspot.com/2006_12_31_archive.html ) were fearful of losing the old feudal system in which the peasants were kept as wage slaves. Jewish immigration from the 1880s began a process of agricultural and industrial revolution that filled the vacuum left by the implosion of this unsustainable model (why would Arab landlords have sold land to Jews if their system was successful?). Since the Jewish model was thriving and the Arab one was not, inevitably the Jews would have peacefully acquired more and more land as well as attracting Arab peasants into better paying agricultural jobs as well as the industries in the cities and ports - i.e., out of the clutches of the feudal lords. Since this development could not be combated economically, it had to be combated militarily. Unfortunately for the Arabs terrorists, the Jews were better ultimately organised in this respect too.

The Palestinian refugees are the modern equivalent of the wage-slave farmers and provide the modern Arab elites with the constituency through which they can maintain their wealth - through aid form the EU, etc., etc - and maintain the pressure on Israel through blaming Israel for the plight of the refugees. This ignoring the fact that Israel successfully integrated a larger number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the creation of the State of Israel but were targeted regardless. These people and their descendants now account for just over half of Israel's Jewish population.

Waaaay! It's been a while since we've all been treated to the hilarious cod-psychoanalysis. Of course violent Palestinian resistance has nothing whatsoever to do with living under occupation, nothing to do with the regular cycle of dispossession, murder and enforced poverty. Nothing whatsoever to do with sniper bullets, F-15s, home demolitions and expulsions, stolen water supplies or destroyed olive groves. No, nay, never - it's that hard wired Islamic anti-Semitism and 'shame' at having Muslim lands conquered by non-Muslims. Of course! (Psssst! No-one mention the fact that numerous Palestinian militants, sometimes the most extreme - George Habash anyone?, have been athiests, Marxists and/or Christians).

Without wanting to keep doling out advice, if you want a good case-study of your average Palestinian terrorist you should watch the rather wonderful documentary Arna's Children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6EXrA3UFwM) made by the Israeli film-maker Juliano Mer-Khamis. It focuses on the fate of the five leading members of Mer-Khamis' mother's (the Arna of the title, a Jewish peace activist) youth theatre group run in a Jenin refugee camp. He found that all five of them had gone on to join a variety of militant groups for various reasons and that some of them had commited atrocities. I don't expect it to change your opinion of the conflict (if you even watch it, that is) but it might just rid you of these ****ing stupid ideas about what motivates Palestinian resentment, organisation and resistance.

Here's a clue. It isn't anti-Semitism, it isn't some weird religio-metaphysical shame at conquered Muslim lands or the economic success of Israel (incidentally, it's not difficult to be an economic success when you are the proxy/client state of probably the richest and most powerful imperial state that has ever existed). The film covers Zakaria Zubeidi who's now the effective leader of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades - in his case it was a number of events that I think would lead to the radicalisation of anyone anywhere. His father being banned from teaching and later interned because he was a member of Fatah, being shot in the leg by an Israeli sniper whilst on a demonstration - leaving him permanently disabled, the fact that nearly all of his childhood friends had been killed by the time he was twenty, and finally the killing of his mother and brother by an Israeli sniper while they were standing at a window in their house during the Battle of Jenin.

Of all the absolute bull**** in this post the claim that, "Jews for centuries have been regarded as a lower-class of human being by Muslims in particular", is the worst. I mean there's no possible way you can back that up and there's no possible way you can actually belive that white Western Europeans have held a more progressive attitude towards Jews throughout history than those in the Islamic world/Middle East.

As for the 'successful' integration of Middle Eastern Jews, we have time and time again been through the substantial differences between Jewish immigration/refugees to Israel from the Middle East and Palestinian refugees. You've just chosen to ignore it. And do you know anything about the disgusting discrimination suffered by Mizrahi Jews in Israel?

On these weird economic reasons for the pre-Independence conflict. I can only suggest you read the British Mandate's '45 Survey of Palestine, available here (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html).

You're not interested in historical reality, you just heap nonsense on top of nonsense and are the worst kind of historical negationist. Stop posting authoritatively about a topic when you have absolutely no interest in the actual facts and historical truths.

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's a couple of interesting videos to compare:

1) Pre-op briefing by IDF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yphfyN0dqi8

2) Pre-op briefing by IHH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSYjuDEZw1w

[LiverpoolHibs]

As for the 'successful' integration of Middle Eastern Jews, we have time and time again been through the substantial differences between Jewish immigration/refugees to Israel from the Middle East and Palestinian refugees. You've just chosen to ignore it. And do you know anything about the disgusting discrimination suffered by Mizrahi Jews in Israel

And as if by magic, here's a fantastic example of Israel's successful integration of Middle Eastern Jews. Hard-right Israelis hold one of the largest protests Israel has ever seen in opposition to Sephardi Jews being educated alongside Ashkenazis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10338900.stm

[LiverpoolHibs]

Here's a couple of interesting videos to compare:

1) Pre-op briefing by IDF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yphfyN0dqi8

2) Pre-op briefing by IHH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSYjuDEZw1w

What's interesting about them?

Edit: And are you going to reply to anything I've written above?

[Hibrandenburg]

Just beamed straight to the end of this thread without reading the posts.

Can anyone tell me whose ahead in points please?

[khib70]

Just beamed straight to the end of this thread without reading the posts.

Can anyone tell me whose ahead in points please?
I've thrown in the towel. There's only so much brick wall headbanging one person can do.

Like this though.....

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/israel-just-making-it-easier-for-guardian-readers-to-look-good-201006012778/
:greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

I've thrown in the towel. There's only so much brick wall headbanging one person can do.

Like this though.....

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/israel-just-making-it-easier-for-guardian-readers-to-look-good-201006012778/
:greengrin

Enjoyed that :thumbsup:

Here is a rather more serious take on the incident by a US-based muslim MD in which she questions the stereotype of Israel that is pedalled in the muslim world as well as in western liberal - and not-so-liberal - circles.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qanta-ahmed/israel-and-the-flotilla-o_b_613660.html

[ballengeich]

Enjoyed that :thumbsup:

Here is a rather more serious take on the incident by a US-based muslim MD in which she questions the stereotype of Israel that is pedalled in the muslim world as well as in western liberal - and not-so-liberal - circles.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qanta-ahmed/israel-and-the-flotilla-o_b_613660.html

Particularly interesting given her background as a Muslim from a family displaced from India. The number of people who fled their homes in the sub-continent was substantially greater than the number in the Middle East. Sadly for them, Palestinian Arabs seem to have been the ones who got the least help in the territories they moved to.

[khib70]

Enjoyed that :thumbsup:

Here is a rather more serious take on the incident by a US-based muslim MD in which she questions the stereotype of Israel that is pedalled in the muslim world as well as in western liberal - and not-so-liberal - circles.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qanta-ahmed/israel-and-the-flotilla-o_b_613660.html
That is a seriously good article on a liberal left site. Although I suspect we are shortly to be told at some length what's wrong with it, and how the author is some kind of closet Zionist.

[(((Fergus)))]

That is a seriously good article on a liberal left site. Although I suspect we are shortly to be told at some length what's wrong with it, and how the author is some kind of closet Zionist.

If you're desperate for depressing negativity, the comments are full of it, although there are some rays of light in there too.

If you need cheering up, here's a video I found today - IDF on patrol in Hebron...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqjs***POnM

[(((Fergus)))]

Oh and here is another inspiring article, again in a leftist paper, about an Arab scientist living and working in Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/week-s-end/the-israeli-scientist-who-is-sniffing-out-cancer-1.299656

[hibsbollah]

Oh and here is another inspiring article, again in a leftist paper, about an Arab scientist living and working in Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/week-s-end/the-israeli-scientist-who-is-sniffing-out-cancer-1.299656


As has been discussed previously Fergus, Haaretz is a left-leaning paper. It is also an avowedly zionist paper, and supports the Jewish project. Therefore, khibs, I suspect the author isnt a 'closet' anything. There are plenty on the left of the political spectrum that support Israel, and plenty on the right of the spectrum that support the Palestinians. I sometimes wonder why this isnt more readily understood.

I asked you this question before Fergus but didnt get a response. How do you define 'Arab'?

[khib70]

As has been discussed previously Fergus, Haaretz is a left-leaning paper. It is also an avowedly zionist paper, and supports the Jewish project. Therefore, khibs, I suspect the author isnt a 'closet' anything. There are plenty on the left of the political spectrum that support Israel, and plenty on the right of the spectrum that support the Palestinians. I sometimes wonder why this isnt more readily understood.

I asked you this question before Fergus but didnt get a response. How do you define 'Arab'?
I'm aware of the nature of Haaretz which I read every day and which is my preferred source of "horses mouth" information about Israel. It was Dr Ahmed's piece which I thought would be debunked in short order (but not by you:wink:).

I'm also aware that you have your own take on these matters, so I'm a bit disappointed that you've adopted LH's habit of referring to Israel as the Jewish or Zionist "project". Israel is a sovereign country, not a "project". You can't object to the use of terms like "Judea and Samaria" as denying the existence of whoever, and then reduce the Israeli nation as a "project"

You're absolutely right to point out that support for either side of this issue does not divide along strictly left/right lines, but as some people tend to forget, neither do most things. However, as the "Daily Mash" article linked above shrewdly, if frivolously points out, expressing any sympathy for Israel in left/liberal environments is liable to get you branded as a fascist warmonger. It's already happened to Fergus on here.

As to Fergus's definition of "Arab", I'll definitely leave that to him. While I share his strong support for Israel, we probably differ in that Fergus tends to overemphasise the ethnic dimension. You see, there is debate and mutual respect within the overall sphere of support for Israel. And it doesn't involve throwing people off rooftops:greengrin

[hibsbollah]

'the jewish project' is probably not very politically correct, you're right. However, I think it is valid to describe the Israeli state as 'a project', because it has a different historical genesis than most countries, and was created for a particular purpose. It isn't necessarily a pejorative description either (although you're right, i was using it in that sense:greengrin)

I'm trying to get to the bottom of Fergus' interest in the ethnic/racial element, which you've obviously noticed too.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The recently published U.N. Human Rights Council's report on the hijacking and murders can be read here (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf) - if anyone's interested. It is absolutely unequivocal on the illegality of the Israeli raid, the illegality of the siege of Gaza and the legality of the passengers' resistance to the raid. It also corroborates the witness reports of live fire from the helicopters prior to the commandos rappelling onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara - dismissed as lies by many.

It just goes to show that Israel and its lackeys (including the ever notable dupes on this very thread) can throw up as much chaff as they want, tell as many bare-faced lies as they want and distort the facts as much as they want but the truth will always out in the end. They must be feeling mighty ashamed, I'd imagine.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm also aware that you have your own take on these matters, so I'm a bit disappointed that you've adopted LH's habit of referring to Israel as the Jewish or Zionist "project". Israel is a sovereign country, not a "project". You can't object to the use of terms like "Judea and Samaria" as denying the existence of whoever, and then reduce the Israeli nation as a "project".

Absolute nonsense as usual.

I have never referred to Israel as 'the Jewish project' as you well know, I can only imagine that's an intentional attempt to smear.

That apart, to say that referring to Israel as a 'Zionist project' is the same as referring to the Occupied West Bank as Judea and Samaria just shows a mammoth misunderstanding of what is happening in the region - unsurprisingly. Israel is a sovereign state, yes, but it is also just about as far away as it's possible to get from being a static, stable and unchanging national entity. While there is still an ongoing and illegal settling/colonisation of land outwith its internationally recognised borders - carried out with the express logistical and political support of every arm of the state's institutions - there can never be anything controversial whatsoever about referring to a 'Zionist project' in the region.

Referring to the Occupied West Bank as Judea and Samaria, on the other hand, is a deliberate attempt to deny the existence of a people living in the region and to deny their systematic dispossesion and occupation.

There is no similarity.

[Woody1985]

Did a Jewish boy beat you up at school or something?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Did a Jewish boy beat you up at school or something?

That managed to be monumentally stupid, unpleasant and unfunny all at the same time. A triumph...

[Betty Boop]

No chance for the peace talks to succeed, as Israel resumes the building of illegal settlements.

[ballengeich]

No chance for the peace talks to succeed, as Israel resumes the building of illegal settlements.

With the settlements on one side and Hamas on the other, I fear that you're right.

[Woody1985]

That managed to be monumentally stupid, unpleasant and unfunny all at the same time. A triumph...

I'll take that as a yes. :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

No chance for the peace talks to succeed, as Israel resumes the building of illegal settlements.

That shouldn't be a reason. They can either
a) do a land swap against predominantly Arab areas inside the green line (although most Israeli Arabs do not want this, abeit they do want to see a Pal state) or
b) allow the Jews in question to become citizens of a future state of Palestine

Perhaps a more pressing problem is the absence of someone on the Palestinian side with a mandate to make and deliver peace with Israel? It seems as soon as a leader appears to be to making peace with Israel, his internal support disappears - not that Abu Mazen has much anyway. Unless he wants a Palestinian State minus Gaza, why is he even at the talks? To be fair, I think both sides are just going through the motions to stay onside with Obama.

[hibsbollah]

No chance for the peace talks to succeed, as Israel resumes the building of illegal settlements.

No chance anyway. Neither party involved in the talks wants them to succeed.

[LiverpoolHibs]

No chance for the peace talks to succeed, as Israel resumes the building of illegal settlements.

There really wasn't any chance for them to succeed ayway. As usual they were just a completely pointless piece of political theatre; a hustle to provide cover whilst the confiscation of Palestinian land continues unabated.

Which it was by the way. The settlement freeze was a complete sham (http://coteret.com/2010/05/09/maariv-feature-documents-settlement-freeze-sham/) and was coupled with a stepping up of the demolition programme (which included the razing of the entire Palestinian and Bedouin villages of al-Farasiye and al-Arakib).


I'll take that as a yes. :greengrin

That's a pretty strange thing to do, but never mind.


That shouldn't be a reason. They can either
a) do a land swap against predominantly Arab areas inside the green line (although most Israeli Arabs do not want this, abeit they do want to see a Pal state) or
b) allow the Jews in question to become citizens of a future state of Palestine

Perhaps a more pressing problem is the absence of someone on the Palestinian side with a mandate to make and deliver peace with Israel? It seems as soon as a leader appears to be to making peace with Israel, his internal support disappears - not that Abu Mazen has much anyway. Unless he wants a Palestinian State minus Gaza, why is he even at the talks? To be fair, I think both sides are just going through the motions to stay onside with Obama.

Odder and odder. Do you seriously think that;

a) Israel would cede land from within its current borders to a future Palestinian state?

b) Israeli settlers would accept citizenship of a future Palestinian state?

The second bit actually has a scrap of truth to it. But the point isn't that support for Abbas is diminished when he 'seeks peace', it's that he has no reliance whatsoever on support within Palestinian society for his and the P.A.'s continued existence. He relies entirely on being propped up by the international community (in actu the U.S.); hence he dropped his stance that he would not take part in talks without an extension of the (sham) settlement freeze as soon as, erm, he was told that he would be dropping that stance.

[Betty Boop]

Obama's response to the murder of an American citizen is very disappointing. The silence is deafening.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26471.htm

[One Day Soon]

I'll take that as a yes. :greengrin

Actually that was very, very funny. Most Trots however have their sense of humour surgically removed.

[One Day Soon]

The recently published U.N. Human Rights Council's report on the hijacking and murders can be read here (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf) - if anyone's interested. It is absolutely unequivocal on the illegality of the Israeli raid, the illegality of the siege of Gaza and the legality of the passengers' resistance to the raid. It also corroborates the witness reports of live fire from the helicopters prior to the commandos rappelling onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara - dismissed as lies by many.

It just goes to show that Israel and its lackeys (including the ever notable dupes on this very thread) can throw up as much chaff as they want, tell as many bare-faced lies as they want and distort the facts as much as they want but the truth will always out in the end. They must be feeling mighty ashamed, I'd imagine.

Unfortunately the fact that the truth will usually out in the end doesn't really cut it too much where resolving the problem is concerned. This is I think as close as it gets to being a truly irreconcilable set of differences. I can see no way in which the necessary concessions from either side (it is not really even the case that there is an either side in any meaningful sense, more like a collection of self interested factions loosely grouped into two mutually hostile sides) will ever be made.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Actually that was very, very funny. Most Trots however have their sense of humour surgically removed.

Hold on, that definitely wasn't funny in any sense - never mind 'very, very funny'. Conversely, someone pretending they thought a comment was hilarious due to a dislike of someone's politics is amusing. Or pathetic. Or both...

And it's nice to see that weird 'Trot' obsession is still kicking about.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Unfortunately the fact that the truth will usually out in the end doesn't really cut it too much where resolving the problem is concerned. This is I think as close as it gets to being a truly irreconcilable set of differences. I can see no way in which the necessary concessions from either side (it is not really even the case that there is an either side in any meaningful sense, more like a collection of self interested factions loosely grouped into two mutually hostile sides) will ever be made.

That's an absolutely amazing sentence.

[Betty Boop]

Hold on, that definitely wasn't funny in any sense - never mind 'very, very funny'. Conversely, someone pretending they thought a comment was hilarious due to a dislike of someone's politics is amusing. Or pathetic. Or both...

And it's nice to see that weird 'Trot' obsession is still kicking about.

Nice to see you back Wolfie ! :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Hold on, that definitely wasn't funny in any sense - never mind 'very, very funny'. Conversely, someone pretending they thought a comment was hilarious due to a dislike of someone's politics is amusing. Or pathetic. Or both...

And it's nice to see that weird 'Trot' obsession is still kicking about.

If we can just pause to suspend personal/political hostilities for a moment I would like to reassure you that I genuinely found Woody's observation extremely funny. The reason, I think, why it strikes such a chord is because of your own apparent lack of self humour allied to a certain earnestness.

Anyway back to normal service. That Trot label seems to bug you almost as much as the whole paradigm thing, I think you've missed me really.

[One Day Soon]

That's an absolutely amazing sentence.

Actually no you are quite right. Back in the real world the emergence of the truth has made a gigantic difference to the whole situation. Israeli tanks are in reverse and rocket launchers aimed at Israeli settlements are being dismantled as we speak. Except that, er, no they're not.

[khib70]

The recently published U.N. Human Rights Council's report on the hijacking and murders can be read here (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf) - if anyone's interested. It is absolutely unequivocal on the illegality of the Israeli raid, the illegality of the siege of Gaza and the legality of the passengers' resistance to the raid. It also corroborates the witness reports of live fire from the helicopters prior to the commandos rappelling onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara - dismissed as lies by many.

It just goes to show that Israel and its lackeys (including the ever notable dupes on this very thread) can throw up as much chaff as they want, tell as many bare-faced lies as they want and distort the facts as much as they want but the truth will always out in the end. They must be feeling mighty ashamed, I'd imagine.
You've got a real brass neck calling anyone else a "dupe" when you uncritically accept a report from the UNHRC of all people. The very same bunch that had the holocaust denying, barking mad, president of Iran as a keynote speaker once.

I wouldn't give a scintilla of credibility to anything on this subject coming out of the UN, but, since you either completely ignore or disparage every source that doesn't completely endorse your own views, it's not hard to see why you're currently waving this one around.

Luckily,nobody else takes them very seriously at all

[khib70]

If we can just pause to suspend personal/political hostilities for a moment I would like to reassure you that I genuinely found Woody's observation extremely funny. The reason, I think, why it strikes such a chord is because of your own apparent lack of self humour allied to a certain earnestness.

Anyway back to normal service. That Trot label seems to bug you almost as much as the whole paradigm thing, I think you've missed me really.
I actually didn't find it very funny either. And I'm certainly not a Trot (whatever that is these days) or notably humourless.

Much as I disagree strongly with LH on virtually everything, I have never detected a scintilla of anti-Semitism in anything he's ever said. Woody's comment (which I accept was intended to be flippant) implies that LH has an anti-Jewish agenda, which is actually pretty insulting, as well as inaccurate.

The grouping of views on this issue is quite complex, and as Hibsbollah has pointed out above, is not polarised on left/right or religious lines. There are many non-Jewish supporters of Israel ( including myself) and many Jews (and indeed Israelis) who are strongly anti-Zionist. (Ilan Pappe and Chomsky spring to mind).

Equally, every mainstream British political party has a "Friends of Israel" organisation and a pro-Palestinian group of some description. People of my own acquaintance from both sides of the debate also come from the widest political spectrum imaginable.

I appreciate attempts to lighten up what is traditionally a pretty weighty thread, but I'm sure Woody and everyone else is capable of being funny without making unwarranted assumptions about LH or anyone else.

[LiverpoolHibs]

If we can just pause to suspend personal/political hostilities for a moment I would like to reassure you that I genuinely found Woody's observation extremely funny. The reason, I think, why it strikes such a chord is because of your own apparent lack of self humour allied to a certain earnestness.

Nope, I'm afraid unless you have the sense of humour of an intellectually lacking 10-year-old, there's no way you could have found that even slightly risible. It was palpably unfunny; in any other company away from the internet it would have been accompanied with an accidental snort and an increasingly embarrassed look around a suitably unamused audience. No offence, Woody...

Finding objectively unfunny things unfunny does not equate of earnestness or a lack of 'self-humour', rather the opposite. Feel free to continue with the attempted character profile, that's genuinely entertaining.


Anyway back to normal service. That Trot label seems to bug you almost as much as the whole paradigm thing, I think you've missed me really.

Neither the 'Trot' nor the 'paradigm thing' have had any impact upon me whatsoever and I have absolutely no idea why you think they have. We're on the internet and I'm conversing with someone I've never met, am never likely to meet and who's abiding personality trait, if an internet persona is sufficient to go on, is worrying levels of anger at some pretty odd targets. For some reason you've decided that I'm cut to the quick every time you make reference to 'Trots' (hence, presumably, the volume at which you do so), rather it just reinforces the impression that you're slightly peculiar.


Actually no you are quite right. Back in the real world the emergence of the truth has made a gigantic difference to the whole situation. Israeli tanks are in reverse and rocket launchers aimed at Israeli settlements are being dismantled as we speak. Except that, er, no they're not.

Yes, that's right. Unless the impact of the truth about such matters immediately results in a peaceful and equitable settlement, they have no impact on anything whatsoever.


You've got a real brass neck calling anyone else a "dupe" when you uncritically accept a report from the UNHRC of all people. The very same bunch that had the holocaust denying, barking mad, president of Iran as a keynote speaker once.

I wouldn't give a scintilla of credibility to anything on this subject coming out of the UN, but, since you either completely ignore or disparage every source that doesn't completely endorse your own views, it's not hard to see why you're currently waving this one around.

Luckily,nobody else takes them very seriously at all

You wouldn't give a scintilla of credibility to anything coming out of the U.N.? So when the UNHRC whole-heartedly and unanimously condemns (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israel%20and%20the%20UN/Issues/Israel_comments_HRC_condemnation_Iran_15_Jun_2010. htm) the brutality and human rights abuses of the Iranian regime you don't give that a 'scintilla of credibility'? This really is backs-to-the-wall, wild lashing out stuff, which is actually rather encouraging to see.

What in the history of Mary Shanthi Dairiam, Desmond de Silva or Karl Hudson- Phillips leads you not to take them seriously on the matter? Which of their findings can be refuted?

N.B. Have you got a link to Ahmadinejad giving a key-note speech to the UNHRC? I'm not disputing it, just can't find a reference for that.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I actually didn't find it very funny either. And I'm certainly not a Trot (whatever that is these days) or notably humourless.

Much as I disagree strongly with LH on virtually everything, I have never detected a scintilla of anti-Semitism in anything he's ever said. Woody's comment (which I accept was intended to be flippant) implies that LH has an anti-Jewish agenda, which is actually pretty insulting, as well as inaccurate.

The grouping of views on this issue is quite complex, and as Hibsbollah has pointed out above, is not polarised on left/right or religious lines. There are many non-Jewish supporters of Israel ( including myself) and many Jews (and indeed Israelis) who are strongly anti-Zionist. (Ilan Pappe and Chomsky spring to mind).

Equally, every mainstream British political party has a "Friends of Israel" organisation and a pro-Palestinian group of some description. People of my own acquaintance from both sides of the debate also come from the widest political spectrum imaginable.

I appreciate attempts to lighten up what is traditionally a pretty weighty thread, but I'm sure Woody and everyone else is capable of being funny without making unwarranted assumptions about LH or anyone else.

Cheers, khib. That's appreciated.

[Woody1985]

I'm humbled by the attention I've received for my (un)funny joke (delete as appropriate) on this thread. I'd just like to offer a quick apology as it seems to be have become a discussion point and detract from the original matter.

Here's a genuine question.

Some of you seem very knowledgable on this thread (regardless of bias and slant put on things). For those that 'support' Palestine and/or are pro Israel how does that support manifest itself in real life?

Is your support simply bashing each others points on a Hibs forum or do you focus your attentions into groups/protests/petitions etc etc to try to make a change?

I won't proclaim to have an iota of knowledge on this subject compared to some of the guys on here but my impression and understanding is that they will continue to fight over this land (holy land?) until one or the other is wiped out. Neither will give up the fight for it or want to share it. IMHO, all the talk and protests in the world aren't going to solve this problem.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm humbled by the attention I've received for my (un)funny joke (delete as appropriate) on this thread. I'd just like to offer a quick apology as it seems to be have become a discussion point and detract from the original matter.

Here's a genuine question.

Some of you seem very knowledgable on this thread (regardless of bias and slant put on things). For those that 'support' Palestine and/or are pro Israel how does that support manifest itself in real life?

Is your support simply bashing each others points on a Hibs forum or do you focus your attentions into groups/protests/petitions etc etc to try to make a change?

I won't proclaim to have an iota of knowledge on this subject compared to some of the guys on here but my impression and understanding is that they will continue to fight over this land (holy land?) until one or the other is wiped out. Neither will give up the fight for it or want to share it. IMHO, all the talk and protests in the world aren't going to solve this problem.

I've been involved in protests, marches, certain campaign groups, letter writing etc. etc., whether it makes any substantial difference is, I suppose, a matter of debate (and it's often very easy to see why such things are easily derided by a lot of people), but it's certainly better than just standing on the sidelines doing nothing whilst recognising that there's a massive injustice taking place. I think as with most people in most things I could and should do more, but you're probably always going to have that.

[Betty Boop]

I actually didn't find it very funny either. And I'm certainly not a Trot (whatever that is these days) or notably humourless.

Much as I disagree strongly with LH on virtually everything, I have never detected a scintilla of anti-Semitism in anything he's ever said. Woody's comment (which I accept was intended to be flippant) implies that LH has an anti-Jewish agenda, which is actually pretty insulting, as well as inaccurate.

The grouping of views on this issue is quite complex, and as Hibsbollah has pointed out above, is not polarised on left/right or religious lines. There are many non-Jewish supporters of Israel ( including myself) and many Jews (and indeed Israelis) who are strongly anti-Zionist. (Ilan Pappe and Chomsky spring to mind).

Equally, every mainstream British political party has a "Friends of Israel" organisation and a pro-Palestinian group of some description. People of my own acquaintance from both sides of the debate also come from the widest political spectrum imaginable.

I appreciate attempts to lighten up what is traditionally a pretty weighty thread, but I'm sure Woody and everyone else is capable of being funny without making unwarranted assumptions about LH or anyone else.

He is opening the 14th Edinburgh Independent Radical Book Fair-The Alternative Book Festival on the 27th October, at the Out of the Blue Drill Hall in Dalmeny Street. Admission free.

[One Day Soon]

I actually didn't find it very funny either. And I'm certainly not a Trot (whatever that is these days) or notably humourless.

Much as I disagree strongly with LH on virtually everything, I have never detected a scintilla of anti-Semitism in anything he's ever said. Woody's comment (which I accept was intended to be flippant) implies that LH has an anti-Jewish agenda, which is actually pretty insulting, as well as inaccurate.

Much as I too disagree with LH on virtually everything I can't say I have particularly detected any anti-semitism from him either. Woody's comment
(or at least my interpretation of it) did not imply an anti-Jewish agenda, it was a comedic jibe at the one-sided nature of LH's views on the Palestinian conflict. And in my view it was very funny.

The grouping of views on this issue is quite complex, and as Hibsbollah has pointed out above, is not polarised on left/right or religious lines. There are many non-Jewish supporters of Israel ( including myself) and many Jews (and indeed Israelis) who are strongly anti-Zionist. (Ilan Pappe and Chomsky spring to mind).

Equally, every mainstream British political party has a "Friends of Israel" organisation and a pro-Palestinian group of some description. People of my own acquaintance from both sides of the debate also come from the widest political spectrum imaginable.

I appreciate attempts to lighten up what is traditionally a pretty weighty thread, but I'm sure Woody and everyone else is capable of being funny without making unwarranted assumptions about LH or anyone else.

Are you really saying that you think Woody actually meant it when he asked if a Jewish boy had beaten up LH at school? Good grief.

[One Day Soon]

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2592433#post2592433)
If we can just pause to suspend personal/political hostilities for a moment I would like to reassure you that I genuinely found Woody's observation extremely funny. The reason, I think, why it strikes such a chord is because of your own apparent lack of self humour allied to a certain earnestness.


Nope, I'm afraid unless you have the sense of humour of an intellectually lacking 10-year-old, there's no way you could have found that even slightly risible. It was palpably unfunny; in any other company away from the internet it would have been accompanied with an accidental snort and an increasingly embarrassed look around a suitably unamused audience. No offence, Woody...

Oh dear. "The reason, I think, why it strikes such a chord is because of your own apparent lack of self humour allied to a certain earnestness". I rest my case.

Finding objectively unfunny things unfunny does not equate of earnestness or a lack of 'self-humour', rather the opposite. Feel free to continue with the attempted character profile, that's genuinely entertaining.

I wasn't aware I had started to character profile you.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2592433#post2592433)
Anyway back to normal service. That Trot label seems to bug you almost as much as the whole paradigm thing, I think you've missed me really.





Neither the 'Trot' nor the 'paradigm thing' have had any impact upon me whatsoever and I have absolutely no idea why you think they have. We're on the internet and I'm conversing with someone I've never met, am never likely to meet and who's abiding personality trait, if an internet persona is sufficient to go on, is worrying levels of anger at some pretty odd targets. For some reason you've decided that I'm cut to the quick every time you make reference to 'Trots' (hence, presumably, the volume at which you do so), rather it just reinforces the impression that you're slightly peculiar.

Riiiiiight.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2592436#post2592436)
Actually no you are quite right. Back in the real world the emergence of the truth has made a gigantic difference to the whole situation. Israeli tanks are in reverse and rocket launchers aimed at Israeli settlements are being dismantled as we speak. Except that, er, no they're not.





Yes, that's right. Unless the impact of the truth about such matters immediately results in a peaceful and equitable settlement, they have no impact on anything whatsoever.

I think we've known the truth about what's going on in that part of the world for the best part of half a century haven't we? Basically the mass audience has known for as long as we have had an effective modern media. So what's changed? How long do you want to give it for 'the impact of the truth' to stop people from being killed and oppressed before we decide that hasn't worked?

You know there are significant numbers of people, particularly on the far left, who wouldn't know what to do with their lives if some major and intractable issues were resolved. I recall vividly at one meeting where a feminista of my aquaintance stood and addressed the gathered throng. She said "I want to raise the issue of the invasion of Iraq which has just started, because I'm really concerned about it and I think it could be extremely bad news for the Party". Her eyes were shining and her animated and excited body language was that of someone who had just come down to Santa's bounty on Christmas morning. To be clear, I am not accusing LH of this. What I am saying is that talk is easy on these issues and, for some, a happy displacement from some of the very difficult real choices.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by khib70 http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2592529#post2592529)
You've got a real brass neck calling anyone else a "dupe" when you uncritically accept a report from the UNHRC of all people. The very same bunch that had the holocaust denying, barking mad, president of Iran as a keynote speaker once.

I wouldn't give a scintilla of credibility to anything on this subject coming out of the UN, but, since you either completely ignore or disparage every source that doesn't completely endorse your own views, it's not hard to see why you're currently waving this one around.

Luckily,nobody else takes them very seriously at all



You wouldn't give a scintilla of credibility to anything coming out of the U.N.? So when the UNHRC whole-heartedly and unanimously condemns (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israel%20and%20the%20UN/Issues/Israel_comments_HRC_condemnation_Iran_15_Jun_2010. htm) the brutality and human rights abuses of the Iranian regime you don't give that a 'scintilla of credibility'? This really is backs-to-the-wall, wild lashing out stuff, which is actually rather encouraging to see.

What in the history of Mary Shanthi Dairiam, Desmond de Silva or Karl Hudson- Phillips leads you not to take them seriously on the matter? Which of their findings can be refuted?

N.B. Have you got a link to Ahmadinejad giving a key-note speech to the UNHRC? I'm not disputing it, just can't find a reference for that.

[One Day Soon]

I've been involved in protests, marches, certain campaign groups, letter writing etc. etc., whether it makes any substantial difference is, I suppose, a matter of debate (and it's often very easy to see why such things are easily derided by a lot of people), but it's certainly better than just standing on the sidelines doing nothing whilst recognising that there's a massive injustice taking place. I think as with most people in most things I could and should do more, but you're probably always going to have that.

There is an interesting debate to be had around whether protests and marches in particular have the effect of forcing issues to be discussed and resolved or whether in fact they act as a kind of placebo for real action to be taken. A kind of 'I see there's a protest taking place on X,Y or Z so that means something is being done' mentality for the masses. It creates a nice feeling of community for those protesting and marching but does it make any difference to the issue it focuses on?

[hibsbollah]

I actually didn't find it very funny either. And I'm certainly not a Trot (whatever that is these days) or notably humourless.

Much as I disagree strongly with LH on virtually everything, I have never detected a scintilla of anti-Semitism in anything he's ever said. Woody's comment (which I accept was intended to be flippant) implies that LH has an anti-Jewish agenda, which is actually pretty insulting, as well as inaccurate.

The grouping of views on this issue is quite complex, and as Hibsbollah has pointed out above, is not polarised on left/right or religious lines. There are many non-Jewish supporters of Israel ( including myself) and many Jews (and indeed Israelis) who are strongly anti-Zionist. (Ilan Pappe and Chomsky spring to mind).

Equally, every mainstream British political party has a "Friends of Israel" organisation and a pro-Palestinian group of some description. People of my own acquaintance from both sides of the debate also come from the widest political spectrum imaginable.

I appreciate attempts to lighten up what is traditionally a pretty weighty thread, but I'm sure Woody and everyone else is capable of being funny without making unwarranted assumptions about LH or anyone else.

You showed a lot of class there khibs. Its much more fun debating with someone that shows you a modicum of respect:greengrin

On the subject of israel and ideology, I was listening to an interview with the historian Tony Judt recently, who recently lost his fight with terminal illness. As well as providing a totally inspirational essay on the nature of existence itself, he also reminded listeners that for a large proportion of the early Israeli settlers and postwar kibbutz generation, of whom he was one, Zionism was an idealistic leftwing project.

Theyve taken it off 'listen again' on that radio4 site but its well worth tracking down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/08/tony-judt-obituary

[LiverpoolHibs]

Oh dear. "The reason, I think, why it strikes such a chord is because of your own apparent lack of self humour allied to a certain earnestness". I rest my case.

I believe that was Ulpian's favourite tactic, to repeat himself and say 'yeah, I rest my case'.


Riiiiiight.

Oh zing...


I think we've known the truth about what's going on in that part of the world for the best part of half a century haven't we? Basically the mass audience has known for as long as we have had an effective modern media. So what's changed? How long do you want to give it for 'the impact of the truth' to stop people from being killed and oppressed before we decide that hasn't worked?

No, we most certainly f'ing haven't.

If the truth of the conflict was universally known for the last half century people like Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz wouldn't have been able to publish their books without being held in the same esteem as the greatest (read; most appalling) historical negationists, never mind being commended by all and sundry until their hucksterism was revealed (but still subscribed to by large swathes of humanity, including Fergus on here).

If the truth had been universally known for half a century it wouldn't have taken until 1988 before the lie of the Broadcasts was exposed (kudos to Christopher Hitchens).


You know there are significant numbers of people, particularly on the far left, who wouldn't know what to do with their lives if some major and intractable issues were resolved. I recall vividly at one meeting where a feminista of my aquaintance stood and addressed the gathered throng. She said "I want to raise the issue of the invasion of Iraq which has just started, because I'm really concerned about it and I think it could be extremely bad news for the Party". Her eyes were shining and her animated and excited body language was that of someone who had just come down to Santa's bounty on Christmas morning. To be clear, I am not accusing LH of this. What I am saying is that talk is easy on these issues and, for some, a happy displacement from some of the very difficult real choices.

Yup, that's right. People with an interest in injustices around the world do so not out of any firmly held moral and/or political beliefs but because it provides their life with a vicarious goal and purpose. Equitably resolve those coflicts and the same people would crumble.

No-one opposed apartheid South Africa out of any genuine moral objection, they just did so to give their lives some meaning. They were all terribly disappointed when apartheid fell.

Isn't that a fantastic argument.


There is an interesting debate to be had around whether protests and marches in particular have the effect of forcing issues to be discussed and resolved or whether in fact they act as a kind of placebo for real action to be taken. A kind of 'I see there's a protest taking place on X,Y or Z so that means something is being done' mentality for the masses. It creates a nice feeling of community for those protesting and marching but does it make any difference to the issue it focuses on?

So what would the 'real action' consist of?

[One Day Soon]

I believe that was Ulpian's favourite tactic, to repeat himself and say 'yeah, I rest my case'.

You're right, it should have read 'You rest my case'.



Oh zing...

Zing? Is this a term young people are using now?



No, we most certainly f'ing haven't.

If the truth of the conflict was universally known for the last half century people like Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz wouldn't have been able to publish their books without being held in the same esteem as the greatest (read; most appalling) historical negationists, never mind being commended by all and sundry until their hucksterism was revealed (but still subscribed to by large swathes of humanity, including Fergus on here).

If the truth had been universally known for half a century it wouldn't have taken until 1988 before the lie of the Broadcasts was exposed (kudos to Christopher Hitchens).

Of course we have known for fifty years and of course Peters and Dershowitz would. You are making the mistake of conflating what has been known with a) people actually giving a ****** (which they did about apartheid and appear largely not to about Palestine) and b) there being a global power with enough muscle pushing the agenda (which there pretty much was with apartheid but isn't with Palestine). So yes the truth matters but ultimately achieves nothing on its own as has been amply and horribly repeated to date.

Yup, that's right. People with an interest in injustices around the world do so not out of any firmly held moral and/or political beliefs but because it provides their life with a vicarious goal and purpose. Equitably resolve those coflicts and the same people would crumble.

No-one opposed apartheid South Africa out of any genuine moral objection, they just did so to give their lives some meaning. They were all terribly disappointed when apartheid fell.

Isn't that a fantastic argument.

Its certainly a fantastical argument and I'm not sure why you came up with it because its not what I was saying, but you do have a propensity to ignore contentions you don't like and twist others as above.



So what would the 'real action' consist of?

Here is the nub of it. If I knew what the effective real action was I would be a lot smarter than all those who have already tried and failed. I don't know the route but I'm pretty sure that the objective looks a lot like Northern Ireland. That is to say the various murderous groupings reach or are brought to a point where they recognise that the first thing they have to stop doing is killing one another. Then the rest of the world has to stuff the mouths of the politicians with gold in order to buy them in to a process and finally there has to be a lot of patience and tolerance. The trouble is that the religious divide here is so much deeper, the cynical use of the protagonists for geopolitical jostling is so ingrained and the broader surrounding political temperature is so much higher that I just don't see how you reach the point where their getting sick of it can be translated into effective action. Apart from anything else Israel's electoral system virtually guarantees failure for any politician or party embarking on remotely rational objectives.

In this context real action can only be taken by governments. All else is window dressing.

[One Day Soon]

Liverpool Hibs, I'm not sure I should be encouraging you but I cannot imagine you are not going to want to contibute to this thread: http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?193942-Platini-and-Blatter-grow-a-pair(-NHC)

I thought I would helpfully make you aware of it. Clearly Fergus and others may have observations to make too. There are already one or two blinding contributions in situ.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You're right, it should have read 'You rest my case'.

I'm not sure it should.


Zing? Is this a term young people are using now?

Yup, non-stop daddy-o.


Of course we have known for fifty years and of course Peters and Dershowitz would. You are making the mistake of conflating what has been known with a) people actually giving a ****** (which they did about apartheid and appear largely not to about Palestine) and b) there being a global power with enough muscle pushing the agenda (which there pretty much was with apartheid but isn't with Palestine). So yes the truth matters but ultimately achieves nothing on its own as has been amply and horribly repeated to date.

Well no, it hasn't and no they wouldn't. Just asserting something doesn't make it true. As the truth about the Holocaust is well-known and as their is a pretty-much universal acknowledgement of that truth, the likes of David Irving and the assorted detritus associated with the Institute of Historical Review are roundly acknowledged to be absolutely worthless - and worse.

Until very recently (and arguably still) it was possible to write ahistorical nonsense denying the existence of a Palestinian people, denying the Nakba and pushing the foundational myth of an empty, barren desert made to bloom by settlers and be considered a top-notch, conscientous historian.

Without this concerted campaign of lies, denials and distortions I do not belive that Israel would have been/be able to act in the manner in which it does and has throughout its history.


Its certainly a fantastical argument and I'm not sure why you came up with it because its not what I was saying, but you do have a propensity to ignore contentions you don't like and twist others as above.

What contention did I ignore and what did I distort?

That seemed to me exactly what you were saying but put me right if I'm off-message.


Here is the nub of it. If I knew what the effective real action was I would be a lot smarter than all those who have already tried and failed. I don't know the route but I'm pretty sure that the objective looks a lot like Northern Ireland. That is to say the various murderous groupings reach or are brought to a point where they recognise that the first thing they have to stop doing is killing one another. Then the rest of the world has to stuff the mouths of the politicians with gold in order to buy them in to a process and finally there has to be a lot of patience and tolerance. The trouble is that the religious divide here is so much deeper, the cynical use of the protagonists for geopolitical jostling is so ingrained and the broader surrounding political temperature is so much higher that I just don't see how you reach the point where their getting sick of it can be translated into effective action. Apart from anything else Israel's electoral system virtually guarantees failure for any politician or party embarking on remotely rational objectives.

In this context real action can only be taken by governments. All else is window dressing.

If you're relying on the major world powers to resolve the conflict it's going to be a pretty long and depressing wait for you, I'm afraid. The U.S. and NATO generally are happy with a strong, aggressive Israel and Russia and China are increasingly tied to Israel both in terms of trade/military co-operation and - this can't be underestimated - in terms of an ideological causus foederis;for Russia in terms of its continued brutality in the Caucasus and China with the increasingly unstable Uygher regions. Both of them seek to tie these internal conflicts into the nebulous War on Terror to which Israel is so central.

Pressure has to, and I think will, come from from below. From within Palestine, within Israel (dissent in Israel is increasing year on year but is accompanied by a hardening on the right in a lot of Israeli society which would be foolish to deny) and from the wider world.


Liverpool Hibs, I'm not sure I should be encouraging you but I cannot imagine you are not going to want to contibute to this thread: http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?193942-Platini-and-Blatter-grow-a-pair(-NHC (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?193942-Platini-and-Blatter-grow-a-pair%28-NHC))

I thought I would helpfully make you aware of it. Clearly Fergus and others may have observations to make too. There are already one or two blinding contributions in situ.

There's not really a tremendous deal for me to add to that. Why are you worried about 'encouraging me'?

[hibsbollah]

Until very recently (and arguably still) it was possible to write ahistorical nonsense denying the existence of a Palestinian people, denying the Nakba and pushing the foundational myth of an empty, barren desert made to bloom by settlers and be considered a top-notch, conscientous historian.

Daniel Pipes was on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon, and was spouting exactly the 'ahistorical nonsense' you describe above. The mainstream media is full of voices like that, unfortunately.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Daniel Pipes was on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon, and was spouting exactly the 'ahistorical nonsense' you describe above. The mainstream media is full of voices like that, unfortunately.

Eurgh, do you know what programme it was? I might see if I can manage to listen to it.

And that's a perfect case in point; a man who is taken very seriously, who has served as adviser to a number of high-profile American politicians and who is hosted in a variety of respected news oulets despite being a thoroughgoing racist, an absolute idiot and certifiably insane. Apparently even trying to connect Barack Obama to the P.L.O. hasn't led to his downfall.

[Betty Boop]

Eurgh, do you know what programme it was? I might see if I can manage to listen to it.

And that's a perfect case in point; a man who is taken very seriously, who has served as adviser to a number of high-profile American politicians and who is hosted in a variety of respected news oulets despite being a thoroughgoing racist, an absolute idiot and certifiably insane. Apparently even trying to connect Barack Obama to the P.L.O. hasn't led to his downfall.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v1nhl

[hibsbollah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v1nhl

Thats the one. Daniel Pipes is something else, leaving aside the fact he looks like a cross between a stage hypnotist and Peter Sutcliffe. He gets lined up alongside serious academics as an 'expert in his field'.

[LiverpoolHibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v1nhl


Thats the one. Daniel Pipes is something else, leaving aside the fact he looks like a cross between a stage hypnotist and Peter Sutcliffe. He gets lined up alongside serious academics as an 'expert in his field'.

No-one warned me that Pamela Geller was going to make an appearance! She makes Pipes seem like a reasonable, intelligent human being. Just awful.

That was just an absolutely dreadful debate all-round, I'm afraid.

[khib70]

No-one warned me that Pamela Geller was going to make an appearance! She makes Pipes seem like a reasonable, intelligent human being. Just awful.

That was just an absolutely dreadful debate all-round, I'm afraid.
Always good to find some common ground:greengrin

You're letting this dreadful woman off a bit lightly though. Her presence in this sort of debate depresses me more than it depresses you, probably. Since I believe that a rational case can be made for the existence of Israel, and its actions in it's defence, it annoys the **** out of me when dangerous raving loonies like Geller are wheeled out to argue the case. Her support for Israel is simply a byproduct of her hatred of Islam.

Her horrible CV includes banging the drum for Milosevic and denying the existence of Serb concentration camps. She's accused black South Africans of ethnically cleansing whites, and described Obama as "the love child of Malcolm X". She's also described Chomsky ( who God knows I can't be bothered with) as a "killer", which is typical of her shrieking pub-bore lunacy.

I tried reading her blog but I felt soiled after a couple of paragraphs. She's as bad as the most hate-filled Islamist extremist, but more dangerous given her access to, and acceptance by, those who could very soon be sitting behind the red button.

[One Day Soon]

Well no, it hasn't and no they wouldn't.Just asserting something doesn't make it true. As the truth about the Holocaust is well-known and as their is a pretty-much universal acknowledgement of that truth, the likes of David Irving and the assorted detritus associated with the Institute of Historical Review are roundly acknowledged to be absolutely worthless - and worse.

Of course it doesn't but they are still going to do it aren't they? That's what propagandists do.

Until very recently (and arguably still) it was possible to write ahistorical nonsense denying the existence of a Palestinian people, denying the Nakba and pushing the foundational myth of an empty, barren desert made to bloom by settlers and be considered a top-notch, conscientous historian.

Without this concerted campaign of lies, denials and distortions I do not belive that Israel would have been/be able to act in the manner in which it does and has throughout its history.

I think the idea that either side in this conflict is constrained in their actions by international opinion and still less by the facts and knowledge of what is going on is at best naive. These are at most attempts at news management or contextual propagandising which are all about mitigating consequences and nothing to do with the determination of policy and action.




If you're relying on the major world powers to resolve the conflict it's going to be a pretty long and depressing wait for you, I'm afraid. The U.S. and NATO generally are happy with a strong, aggressive Israel and Russia and China are increasingly tied to Israel both in terms of trade/military co-operation and - this can't be underestimated - in terms of an ideological causus foederis;for Russia in terms of its continued brutality in the Caucasus and China with the increasingly unstable Uygher regions. Both of them seek to tie these internal conflicts into the nebulous War on Terror to which Israel is so central.

I'm not. You are on sticky ground praying in aid the Chinese on this one though. Their conduct of both foreign and domestic policy has never had anything to do with how they are perceived by the rest of the world. They don't need either a pretext or a justification for their internal policies because they conduct those activities irrespective of external considerations. Why do you see the so-called 'War on Terror' as nebulous?

Pressure has to, and I think will, come from from below. From within Palestine, within Israel (dissent in Israel is increasing year on year but is accompanied by a hardening on the right in a lot of Israeli society which would be foolish to deny) and from the wider world.


Is this how you see this conflict being resolved? Is this your route map, as it were, to a peaceful settlement? If it is then I think super power intervention is propbably a better bet - and it isn't much of a bet really.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Always good to find some common ground:greengrin

You're letting this dreadful woman off a bit lightly though. Her presence in this sort of debate depresses me more than it depresses you, probably. Since I believe that a rational case can be made for the existence of Israel, and its actions in it's defence, it annoys the **** out of me when dangerous raving loonies like Geller are wheeled out to argue the case. Her support for Israel is simply a byproduct of her hatred of Islam.

Her horrible CV includes banging the drum for Milosevic and denying the existence of Serb concentration camps. She's accused black South Africans of ethnically cleansing whites, and described Obama as "the love child of Malcolm X". She's also described Chomsky ( who God knows I can't be bothered with) as a "killer", which is typical of her shrieking pub-bore lunacy.

I tried reading her blog but I felt soiled after a couple of paragraphs. She's as bad as the most hate-filled Islamist extremist, but more dangerous given her access to, and acceptance by, those who could very soon be sitting behind the red button.

Indeed. She is absolutely vile.


Of course it doesn't but they are still going to do it aren't they? That's what propagandists do.

You're moving the goalposts. At no point did I say that they (either Holocaust or Nakba deniers) would stop doing it. I said that until very recently it was considered normal for people to write ahistorical, negationist rubbish about the Nakba, the foundation of Israel and the Palestinians generally and be considered pre-eminent historians - and that it's arguably still possible. You claimed this wasn't true and that the truth had been known 'for fifty years'. If you want a particular date to make this clearer, the truth only started to come out with the declassification of Israeli government documents in 1988 and the fantastic work of people such as Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe (speaking in Edinburgh on the 27th as Betty says, just to give that another plug), Norman Finkelstein, Nur Masalha, Walid Khalidi and Simha Flapan in the years following this. Until these people got to work, all the foundational myths of Israel were held to be indisputable historical truths.


I think the idea that either side in this conflict is constrained in their actions by international opinion and still less by the facts and knowledge of what is going on is at best naive. These are at most attempts at news management or contextual propagandising which are all about mitigating consequences and nothing to do with the determination of policy and action.

Hmmm, this is actually really interesting - that is, the question of the impact of international opinion (from above and below) on the various combatants. It's not really what I was talking about in that section but I'll give it some thought nonetheless.


I'm not. You are on sticky ground praying in aid the Chinese on this one though. Their conduct of both foreign and domestic policy has never had anything to do with how they are perceived by the rest of the world. They don't need either a pretext or a justification for their internal policies because they conduct those activities irrespective of external considerations. Why do you see the so-called 'War on Terror' as nebulous?

I'm not sure what you mean here?

I see the War on Terror as nebulous because it's an attempt to reduce very complex and disparate conflicts around the world into one grand, explanatory narrative that doesn't make any sense. It's a conscious attempt to obscure a variety of complicated, inter-connected means of explanation (geo-politics, class, imperialism, resource-scarcity and exploitation etc.) for world events in favour of mind-numbingly stupid, though tremendously ideologically useful, catch all nomenclature.

Hence how China and Russia can see how using such specious reasoning allows the West to (literally) get away with murder and so they apply it to their own conflicts with the Other - namely Chechen and Uyghur/Xinjiang separatism.


Is this how you see this conflict being resolved? Is this your route map, as it were, to a peaceful settlement? If it is then I think super power intervention is propbably a better bet - and it isn't much of a bet really.

But the whole idea of a road map to peace is a fiction as it supposes a degree of parity between the two sides both in terms of power and in terms of what the have to 'let go'. This isn't, to recall one of your previous comparisons, the north of Ireland - the same conditions that brought about a cessation of hostilities in that scenario do not exist in any way here. This is a trap that a lot of people tend to fall into.

Could you explain how you see a superpower intervention transpiring?

[One Day Soon]

[QUOTE=LiverpoolHibs;2601270]
http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601128#post2601128)
Of course it doesn't but they are still going to do it aren't they? That's what propagandists do.


You're moving the goalposts. At no point did I say that they (either Holocaust or Nakba deniers) would stop doing it. I said that until very recently it was considered normal for people to write ahistorical, negationist rubbish about the Nakba, the foundation of Israel and the Palestinians generally and be considered pre-eminent historians - and that it's arguably still possible. You claimed this wasn't true and that the truth had been known 'for fifty years'. If you want a particular date to make this clearer, the truth only started to come out with the declassification of Israeli government documents in 1988 and the fantastic work of people such as Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe (speaking in Edinburgh on the 27th as Betty says, just to give that another plug), Norman Finkelstein, Nur Masalha, Walid Khalidi and Simha Flapan in the years following this. Until these people got to work, all the foundational myths of Israel were held to be indisputable historical truths.

I'm not moving any goalposts. I was referring to the truth about what has been going on in Israel and Palestine in terms of both the repression and the terrorist attacks allied to the wider political activities of the various surrounding nations and other geo-political forces. We have known this for the best part of fifty years and that knowledge has not changed anything.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601128#post2601128)
I think the idea that either side in this conflict is constrained in their actions by international opinion and still less by the facts and knowledge of what is going on is at best naive. These are at most attempts at news management or contextual propagandising which are all about mitigating consequences and nothing to do with the determination of policy and action.





Hmmm, this is actually really interesting - that is, the question of the impact of international opinion (from above and below) on the various combatants. It's not really what I was talking about in that section but I'll give it some thought nonetheless.

I'm not sure in that case what you were talking about.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601128#post2601128)
I'm not. You are on sticky ground praying in aid the Chinese on this one though. Their conduct of both foreign and domestic policy has never had anything to do with how they are perceived by the rest of the world. They don't need either a pretext or a justification for their internal policies because they conduct those activities irrespective of external considerations. Why do you see the so-called 'War on Terror' as nebulous?





I'm not sure what you mean here?

I see the War on Terror as nebulous because it's an attempt to reduce very complex and disparate conflicts around the world into one grand, explanatory narrative that doesn't make any sense. It's a conscious attempt to obscure a variety of complicated, inter-connected means of explanation (geo-politics, class, imperialism, resource-scarcity and exploitation etc.) for world events in favour of mind-numbingly stupid, though tremendously ideologically useful, catch all nomenclature.

I'm with you up until "It's a conscious attempt..." therafter I'm not. I agree that the phrase is used as a catch all but its main usage is in the hands of our old friends 'the meejah' who just love a simplified story. The other problem is that as well as the explanation above, there is also an actual War on Terror which is not nebulous but is a war on terror - eg Afghanistan.

Hence how China and Russia can see how using such specious reasoning allows the West to (literally) get away with murder and so they apply it to their own conflicts with the Other - namely Chechen and Uyghur/Xinjiang separatism.

The Chinese could not give a 5hit about what the West or anyone else thinks about how they conduct their domestic affairs. If they use the phrase War on Terror at all it is simply to stick it to the West in return for any impertinent overtures on democracy, civil rights, Nepal etc.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601128#post2601128)
Is this how you see this conflict being resolved? Is this your route map, as it were, to a peaceful settlement? If it is then I think super power intervention is propbably a better bet - and it isn't much of a bet really.





But the whole idea of a road map to peace is a fiction as it supposes a degree of parity between the two sides both in terms of power and in terms of what the have to 'let go'. This isn't, to recall one of your previous comparisons, the north of Ireland - the same conditions that brought about a cessation of hostilities in that scenario do not exist in any way here. This is a trap that a lot of people tend to fall into.

Let me rephrase. What is your recipe for resolving this conflict? My point was that this is not Northern Ireland which is exactly why I can't see how they can get even to the starting blocks of a peace agreement.

Could you explain how you see a superpower intervention transpiring?

No, because I can't see it happening, that's my point.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm not moving any goalposts. I was referring to the truth about what has been going on in Israel and Palestine in terms of both the repression and the terrorist attacks allied to the wider political activities of the various surrounding nations and other geo-political forces. We have known this for the best part of fifty years and that knowledge has not changed anything.

You're just repeating yourself. Of course people have watched the news for the last fifty years and seen at best decontextualised and, more often, the usual bias to power that exists amongst most media outlets. But that's not what we've been talking about. The truth about the roots of the conflict (that is to say, the huge and indisputable injustice against the Palestinian people which was the corollary of the foundation of Israel) and the continued causes of hostilities have not been known for fifty years and it is just silly to keep insisting that they have.


I 'm not sure in that case what you were talking about.

Well, because it's nothing to do with whether Israel cares about a general, ineffective world opinion; it's about exerting an influence in a manner that will make them care. Whether that is something along the lines of the BDS campaign against South Africa or something different entirely is another question.


I'm with you up until "It's a conscious attempt..." therafter I'm not. I agree that the phrase is used as a catch all but its main usage is in the hands of our old friends 'the meejah' who just love a simplified story. The other problem is that as well as the explanation above, there is also an actual War on Terror which is not nebulous but is a war on terror - eg Afghanistan.

Oh come on, I know you're antipathetic to the media (as am I, on different grounds I'd imagine) but that's just nonsense. You don't get a decision from the Obama White House to avoid use of the term - including changing the Defense Dept. designation to 'Operation Overseas Contingency' from 'Global War on Terror' - if this was something mainly used by the press and news networks.


The Chinese could not give a 5hit about what the West or anyone else thinks about how they conduct their domestic affairs. If they use the phrase War on Terror at all it is simply to stick it to the West in return for any impertinent overtures on democracy, civil rights, Nepal etc.

Sorry, going back. What did you mean by:

You are on sticky ground praying in aid the Chinese on this one though.

It's just asinine and simple-minded to think that China, as powerful as it is, can do what it likes and doesn't care about such things. Have a look at how China's co-opting of the Bushian/Blairite rhetoric played alongside the West's treatment of groups such as the ETIM.


Let me rephrase. What is your recipe for resolving this conflict? My point was that this is not Northern Ireland which is exactly why I can't see how they can get even to the starting blocks of a peace agreement.

You said the problems were 'deeper' but that the route should/would be the same.

By 'recipe for resolving the conflict' do you mean; what do I think is an equitable solution to the conflict or the steps that should/could be made to get to the position where this can be implemented?


No, because I can't see it happening, that's my point.

Ah, right. Sorry.

Edit: What on earth is that smilie face doing there?!

[One Day Soon]

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601289#post2601289)
I'm not moving any goalposts. I was referring to the truth about what has been going on in Israel and Palestine in terms of both the repression and the terrorist attacks allied to the wider political activities of the various surrounding nations and other geo-political forces. We have known this for the best part of fifty years and that knowledge has not changed anything.


You're just repeating yourself. Of course people have watched the news for the last fifty years and seen at best decontextualised and, more often, the usual bias to power that exists amongst most media outlets. But that's not what we've been talking about. The truth about the roots of the conflict (that is to say, the huge and indisputable injustice against the Palestinian people which was the corollary of the foundation of Israel) and the continued causes of hostilities have not been known for fifty years and it is just silly to keep insisting that they have.

I am repeating myself. That's because you said I was moving goalposts and I wasn't. Pilger's (dearie me I really don't like him) 'Palestine is still the issue' for example was made and released in 1974. Ok that's not 50 years its 36 but you take my point. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear the truth has been known for a long, long time. Knowledge of the truth has changed nothing, just as knowledge of what happened on those ships more recently will change nothing. In fact things have gotten worse. My point is that I don't believe that the conclusion of the UN report into the boarding of the ships will make an iota of difference. You can argue that a mass audience hasn't known or paid attention to the truth that has been evident over thet period but frankly if you are waiting for the proletariat to get its ass in gear you will have a long wait. Unless you can somehow get the Israeli/Palestinian conflict onto X Factor.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601289#post2601289)
I 'm not sure in that case what you were talking about.





Well, because it's nothing to do with whether Israel cares about a general, ineffective world opinion; it's about exerting an influence in a manner that will make them care. Whether that is something along the lines of the BDS campaign against South Africa or something different entirely is another question.

This is the crux of the matter. Either Israeli and Palestinian leaders change their actions or they are made to do so. If they cannot be made to do so, then we have to hope that they do so themselves. That's not going to happen.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601289#post2601289)
I'm with you up until "It's a conscious attempt..." therafter I'm not. I agree that the phrase is used as a catch all but its main usage is in the hands of our old friends 'the meejah' who just love a simplified story. The other problem is that as well as the explanation above, there is also an actual War on Terror which is not nebulous but is a war on terror - eg Afghanistan.





Oh come on, I know you're antipathetic to the media (as am I, on different grounds I'd imagine) but that's just nonsense. You don't get a decision from the Obama White House to avoid use of the term - including changing the Defense Dept. designation to 'Operation Overseas Contingency' from 'Global War on Terror' - if this was something mainly used by the press and news networks.

I'm afraid it is not nonsense. I hold my views on the media because I think they are crap and what's worse they pretend to be purveyors of truth and fact. They are big business dressed up as altruists. Nothing wrong with big business, quite a lot wrong with hypocrisy. Your post makes my point - Obama Whitehouse changes wording and emphasis, media just carry right on using the same term regardless.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601289#post2601289)
The Chinese could not give a 5hit about what the West or anyone else thinks about how they conduct their domestic affairs. If they use the phrase War on Terror at all it is simply to stick it to the West in return for any impertinent overtures on democracy, civil rights, Nepal etc.



Sorry, going back. What did you mean by:

You are on sticky ground praying in aid the Chinese on this one though.
I meant that while I will buy the Russian comparator I'm in no way buying the Chinese one.

It's just asinine and simple-minded to think that China, as powerful as it is, can do what it likes and doesn't care about such things. Have a look at how China's co-opting of the Bushian/Blairite rhetoric played alongside the West's treatment of groups such as the ETIM.

Offensively written though your comments here are I will confine myself to this: do you really think that even if there were no Western rhetoric to co-opt the Chinese wouldn't have carried right on as before anyway? It is no more than a convenient fig leaf, so to argue that this somehow enables the Chinese to behave in a way they wouldn't otherwise is ridiculous.


http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601289#post2601289)
Let me rephrase. What is your recipe for resolving this conflict? My point was that this is not Northern Ireland which is exactly why I can't see how they can get even to the starting blocks of a peace agreement.




You said the problems were 'deeper' but that the route should/would be the same.
Yes. First order of business is stop killing each other. Can't do anything else until that starts. They can't do that becuase those in charge on both sides aren't interested in peace, they are interested in 'victory' whatever that means in the context of lots of dead and mutilated people. Not to mention the fact that just like in Northern Ireland those in charge of the war machines have a vested interest in a state of war. Deliver peace and you are left with some bloody killers and gangsters who don't know any other business.

By 'recipe for resolving the conflict' do you mean; what do I think is an equitable solution to the conflict or the steps that should/could be made to get to the position where this can be implemented?

Either or both. Mainly the latter.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601289#post2601289)
No, because I can't see it happening, that's my point.



Ah, right. Sorry.

Edit: What on earth is that smilie face doing there?!

I don't know. I didn't put it there and as you are no doubt aware its certainly not my style.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I am repeating myself. That's because you said I was moving goalposts and I wasn't. Pilger's (dearie me I really don't like him) 'Palestine is still the issue' for example was made and released in 1974. Ok that's not 50 years its 36 but you take my point. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear the truth has been known for a long, long time. Knowledge of the truth has changed nothing, just as knowledge of what happened on those ships more recently will change nothing. In fact things have gotten worse. My point is that I don't believe that the conclusion of the UN report into the boarding of the ships will make an iota of difference. You can argue that a mass audience hasn't known or paid attention to the truth that has been evident over thet period but frankly if you are waiting for the proletariat to get its ass in gear you will have a long wait. Unless you can somehow get the Israeli/Palestinian conflict onto X Factor.

You did move the goalposts, for the reasons I stated.

The John Pilger bit is unrelated and a further example of you shifting the terms of the debate. I've never suggested that there was no solidarity with, or defence of, the Palestinian people until recently, you're either twisting what I've been saying all along or you're not getting it: the truth of the basis of the conflict as been so muddied and concealed that it has been possible (and still is, arguably) for people to act as some of the most vile historical negationists and be considered proper historians and academics and that Israel's foundational myths remained unchallenged until relatively recently.

Pilger's original Palestine is Still the Issue focused on the injustice of the Palestinian people in the 'here and now', so to speak - the post-67 occupation. He didn't challenge any of the fundamentals of the conflict because he couldn't. It reinforces what I was saying if anything.


This is the crux of the matter. Either Israeli and Palestinian leaders change their actions or they are made to do so. If they cannot be made to do so, then we have to hope that they do so themselves. That's not going to happen.

This balancing up stuff is just silly.


I'm afraid it is not nonsense. I hold my views on the media because I think they are crap and what's worse they pretend to be purveyors of truth and fact. They are big business dressed up as altruists. Nothing wrong with big business, quite a lot wrong with hypocrisy. Your post makes my point - Obama Whitehouse changes wording and emphasis, media just carry right on using the same term regardless.

I have no idea how you think that makes your point.


I meant that while I will buy the Russian comparator I'm in no way buying the Chinese one.

Where do you see a substantial difference between Russia/Chechnya-Dagestan and China/Xinjiang? Just purely in a Russia gives a ****, China doesn't give a **** way?


Offensively written though your comments here are I will confine myself to this: do you really think that even if there were no Western rhetoric to co-opt the Chinese wouldn't have carried right on as before anyway? It is no more than a convenient fig leaf, so to argue that this somehow enables the Chinese to behave in a way they wouldn't otherwise is ridiculous.

It wasn't offensively written, not that you'd be able to complain if it was given the manner in which you frequently post (and in which I do too). It's not offensive to call something asinine and simple-minded if it's asinine and simple minded.

It's a complete hypothetical whether China would have acted in a similar manner or not. It's also hugely beside the point, because they didn't - they made a point of tying their own conflict into the wider narrative. To say they did so as a 'get it up ye' to the West is just not even worthy of debate.


Yes. First order of business is stop killing each other. Can't do anything else until that starts. They can't do that becuase those in charge on both sides aren't interested in peace, they are interested in 'victory' whatever that means in the context of lots of dead and mutilated people. Not to mention the fact that just like in Northern Ireland those in charge of the war machines have a vested interest in a state of war. Deliver peace and you are left with some bloody killers and gangsters who don't know any other business.

No, that's trite. The first order of business is that Israel obeys international law; that settlement building is ended for good, that Israeli forces withdraw from illegally occupied Palestinian land and that they stop illegally blocking the right of return for Palestinian refugees. As long as Israel continues the occupation, the Palestinian people will have the legal and moral basis to resist it - violently if necessary (within moral and legal boundaries).


Either or both. Mainly the latter.

On the first part, I've answered this before so I'll just copy and paste and add a bit to it:

I'd suggest there are three genuine options:

1) Israel accepts the permanent, never-off-the-table, Hamas offer of a tahadiya (a cooling off period)leading to negotiations to establish a hudna (a renewable ten-year ceasefire)and a two-state settlement based on the 1967 borders. So, Israel could stop continuing with Hamas its rejectionist approach to negotiations with the Palestinians which it began with the PLO.

2) Israel formally annexes East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and formally declares that all its inhabitants have full citizenship and full civil, political and religious rights in the new state. Some form of 'Truth and Reconciliation' council along the South African lines is established and moves are made to abide by international law and institute the full right of return for Palestinian refugees.

3) The status quo.

Edit: 4) A continuation of Israeli rejectionism moving towards a 'Palestinian state' eerily similar to the bantustan model in S.A. This is the Netanyahu plan in which Israel keeps control of the Jordan Valley, annexes East Jerusalem so as to make a unified Israeli capital and maintains major settlement blocks in the West Bank.

I would go for option two, but option one would certainly be an improvement.

How to get to that point; that's quite a question. I think, as I've said, that a great deal will rely on a growth in dissent within Israeli society alongside a BDS campaign as concerted and effective as that which confronted South Africa.

In terms of international politics, if it reaches the point (which is unforseeable at the moment) where Israel becomes a hindrance rather than an huge asset to American designs in the Middle East, things would move rather quickly - I think, which is why I find the lobby thesis stuff (that's so prominent at the moment) so annoying, unhelpful and distasteful.


I don't know. I didn't put it there and as you are no doubt aware its certainly not my style.

I wasn't suggesting it was you, that would be a little odd seeing as it was at the top of my post.

[One Day Soon]

ally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601357#post2601357) I am repeating myself. That's because you .....etc


You did move the goalposts, for the reasons I stated.
No I didn't. You're not getting it.

The John Pilger bit is unrelated and a further example of you shifting the terms of the debate. I've never suggested that there was no solidarity with, or defence of, the Palestinian people until recently, you're either twisting what I've been saying all along or you're not getting it: the truth of the basis of the conflict as been so muddied and concealed that it has been possible (and still is, arguably) for people to act as some of the most vile historical negationists and be considered proper historians and academics and that Israel's foundational myths remained unchallenged until relatively recently.
The truth of the basis of the conflict is not as simplistic as you like to paint. Its not quite as bad a generalisation certainly as 'War on Terror' but certainly a generalisation.

Your contention was that the UN findings on the boat boarding would make a difference to the situation. Mine was that it would make no difference. You are now seeking to turn that into a much broader argument about the historical 'truth' on the origins of the conflict which was not what you were originally saying.

Out of curiosity which foundational myths do you reject?

Pilger's original Palestine is Still the Issue focused on the injustice of the Palestinian people in the 'here and now', so to speak - the post-67 occupation. He didn't challenge any of the fundamentals of the conflict because he couldn't. It reinforces what I was saying if anything.
I am not going to provide you with a bunch of citations on this theme. See above re where you started on this.


http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601357#post2601357)
This is the crux of the matter. Either Israeli and Palestinian leaders change their actions or they are made to do so. If they cannot be made to do so, then we have to hope that they do so themselves. That's not going to happen.





This balancing up stuff is just silly.

You are either extraordinarily naive or being deliberately (presumably politically motivated ) obtuse. Even if we disagree on the origins and complexity of the conflict, what you call 'balancing up' is a pre-requisite of any move forward. If you imagine change is possible without the respective leaderships changing their actions you must have spent your life so far in a library.

Your post makes my point - Obama Whitehouse changes wording and emphasis, media just carry right on using the same term regardless.


I have no idea how you think that makes your point.

Did you not feel like engaging on this point?

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601357#post2601357)
I meant that while I will buy the Russian comparator I'm in no way buying the Chinese one.




Where do you see a substantial difference between Russia/Chechnya-Dagestan and China/Xinjiang? Just purely in a Russia gives a ****, China doesn't give a **** way?

Dead right. Russia wants to to be a progressive European power and its outlook (vast gas supplies notwithstanding) is one of someone who wants tojoint the club. China is a different ball game altogether. Doesn't need to join the club because its effectively big enough to be its own club and shortly to be bigger than the club. That's why they're uncontrollable on climate change and everything else. This is where political theory goes out of the window. This is a nation so cash rich it doesn't know what to buy next and a superpower so big in its own region that no-one messes with it including the US. The only reason it hasn't been a bigger global player so far is that it is as it has always been more interested in its own vast internal territory. Your points on their use of WoT as justification is to completely misunderstand their motivations and their increasingly dismissive approach to the liberal blandishments of the West.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601357#post2601357)






It wasn't offensively written, not that you'd be able to complain if it was given the manner in which you frequently post (and in which I do too). It's not offensive to call something asinine and simple-minded if it's asinine and simple minded.


It's a complete hypothetical whether China would have acted in a similar manner or not. It's also hugely beside the point, because they didn't - they made a point of tying their own conflict into the wider narrative. To say they did so as a 'get it up ye' to the West is just not even worthy of debate.
You don't know anything about this do you? As you have taken the trouble to argue already simplistic generalisations don't cut it and lumping the Chinese in with the Russians here is exactly that. Ask any diplomat who has served in South East Asia - the Chinese are different from EVERYONE else.- do you really believe they would have done any differently had they not been anle to pray in aid the WoT? That really is assinine. My argument is not beside the point it is exactly the point

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601357#post2601357)
Yes. First order of business is stop killing each other.





No, that's trite. The first order of business is that Israel obeys international law; that settlement building is ended for good, that Israeli forces withdraw from illegally occupied Palestinian land and that they stop illegally blocking the right of return for Palestinian refugees. As long as Israel continues the occupation, the Palestinian people will have the legal and moral basis to resist it - violently if necessary (within moral and legal boundaries).

Your answer here goes beyond trite. It is dangerously self regarding, irrelevant, student politics nonsense. Of course objectively it is in one sense right but in terms of realpolitik it isn't worth anything more than a set piece press release statement of position. Meanwhile people still get killed. As long as you have killing and the use of weapons you have both a barrier to the very changes you say are the first order of business and the perfect cover for not engaging in those.

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601357#post2601357)
Either or both. Mainly the latter.



On the first part, I've answered this before so I'll just copy and paste and add a bit to it:

I'd suggest there are three genuine options:

1) Israel accepts the permanent, ....etc

I need to reflect on this bit and frankly my dinner is ready

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2601357#post2601357)
I don't know. I didn't put it there and as you are no doubt aware its certainly not my style.



I wasn't suggesting it was you, that would be a little odd seeing as it was at the top of my post.

Did you put it there then?

[IndieHibby]

ODS - please learn to use the 'wrap tags' function. I am developing an aneurysm trying to make sense of your posts! It's one of the little icons above the box where you type your replies!

Muchos gracias amigo/a :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Jeezo, more evidence of Israel's apartheid policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/10/israel-jewish-oath-new-citizens

[khib70]

Jeezo, more evidence of Israel's apartheid policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/10/israel-jewish-oath-new-citizens
Jeezo indeed. Your ability to reduce anything to a slogan never fails to amaze me.

I'm not mad about this myself, but, as you fail to mention, neither is the Israeli Labour party, a large part of the cabinet, and the sensible Israeli media. See here:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/analysis-loyalty-oath-does-not-serve-the-jewish-state-or-jewish-people-1.318286

Meanwhile, in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan............. But why let up from Israel-bashing long enough to see minority populations subjected to a lot worse than having to swear an oath.

[hibsbollah]

Jeezo indeed. Your ability to reduce anything to a slogan never fails to amaze me.

I'm not mad about this myself, but, as you fail to mention, neither is the Israeli Labour party, a large part of the cabinet, and the sensible Israeli media. See here:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/analysis-loyalty-oath-does-not-serve-the-jewish-state-or-jewish-people-1.318286

Meanwhile, in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan............. But why let up from Israel-bashing long enough to see minority populations subjected to a lot worse than having to swear an oath.

To be fair to Betty, it is the chosen policy of Netanyahu's cabinet, so it is by definition representative of the Government's position. I'm not sure what chance it has have getting Knesset approval but it demonstrates the current Govts policy, which can only be described as extremist.

[One Day Soon]

ODS - please learn to use the 'wrap tags' function. I am developing an aneurysm trying to make sense of your posts! It's one of the little icons above the box where you type your replies!

Muchos gracias amigo/a :greengrin

I will see what I can manage. How's that?

[Betty Boop]

Jeezo indeed. Your ability to reduce anything to a slogan never fails to amaze me.

I'm not mad about this myself, but, as you fail to mention, neither is the Israeli Labour party, a large part of the cabinet, and the sensible Israeli media. See here:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/analysis-loyalty-oath-does-not-serve-the-jewish-state-or-jewish-people-1.318286

Meanwhile, in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan............. But why let up from Israel-bashing long enough to see minority populations subjected to a lot worse than having to swear an oath.

Your use of cheap personal digs and whataboutery are a joke ! :greengrin

[khib70]

Your use of cheap personal digs and whataboutery are a joke ! :greengrin
Firstly, I have no personal animosity against you or anyone else on here. The point I was making was that slapping on a link to the Guardian, and attaching a one sentence declaration that this proved Israel was an "apartheid state" was fairly sloppy debating, and more aimed at those who already agree with you than anyone else.

Secondly, as to "whataboutery", it's legitimate to point out that you, some others on here, and the UNHRC seem to think that human rights abuses are things that happen exclusively in Israel. The ethnic cleansing of Africans by Arab guerillas in the service of an Islamist government doesn't seem to arouse much outrage or even interest. Although, to be fair, the UNHRC, did pause in the process of passing endless resolutions about Israel, and inviting the President of Iran to address a racism conference , to express "deep concern" about Darfur.

And I think the proposed oath is stupid, counterproductive, and hopefully won't get through the Knesset. A settlement freeze would be a damn sight more useful IMO.

[(((Fergus)))]

Firstly, I have no personal animosity against you or anyone else on here. The point I was making was that slapping on a link to the Guardian, and attaching a one sentence declaration that this proved Israel was an "apartheid state" was fairly sloppy debating, and more aimed at those who already agree with you than anyone else.

Secondly, as to "whataboutery", it's legitimate to point out that you, some others on here, and the UNHRC seem to think that human rights abuses are things that happen exclusively in Israel. The ethnic cleansing of Africans by Arab guerillas in the service of an Islamist government doesn't seem to arouse much outrage or even interest. Although, to be fair, the UNHRC, did pause in the process of passing endless resolutions about Israel, and inviting the President of Iran to address a racism conference , to express "deep concern" about Darfur.

And I think the proposed oath is stupid, counterproductive, and hopefully won't get through the Knesset. A settlement freeze would be a damn sight more useful IMO.

What good would a settlement freeze do, khib?

BTW I did not know that the settlement freeze applies to building inside existing Jewish communities, i.e., municipalities cannot build anything including extensions to existing properties. Do you know if this is the case?

On another note, here's an item which shakes a range of prejudices.

It's from PalWatch but is a positive news story from the Pal press, showing that PalWatch does appreciate good news and that the Pal press is capable of producing it. It also shows that there are Arabs and Jews in Judea and Samaria who are making peace with each other, regardless of what their leaders are up to:


Last week a fire was set to carpets and copies of the Quran inside a mosque near Bethlehem. In a positive move, the PA official daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida gave prominent first page coverage to the solidarity visit of Israeli "settler rabbis" and "dozens of settler-supporters of peace" who came to the mosque to express condemnation of the arson. The PA daily published a picture of the visit and reported that the rabbis brought new copies of the Quran to replace the burned copies.

In another positive note, two days later the same PA daily showed a picture of Israeli - Palestinian coexistence by publishing a picture of a Palestinian harvesting his olives to the accompaniment of an Israeli sitting right next to him under the tree playing his guitar.

The caption to the picture was:
"Settler from Kiryat Arba plays his guitar while a [Palestinian] resident gathers the olive harvest."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 8, 2010]

The following are texts from two articles in the official PA daily giving prominence to the rabbis' visit:

"Six settler rabbis conducted a solidarity visit to the village of Beit Fajar, near Bethlehem, bringing with them copies of the Quran. Dozens of settler-supporters of peace and hundreds of Palestinians, expressing solidarity, gathered to receive them at the entrance of the village. After handing over a box containing 20 copies of the Quran, to replace those which had been burned in the mosque, Rabbi Menahem Fruman said: 'This land is the land of peace, and Allah will take revenge on those who set fire to the mosque.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 6, 2010]


"Yesterday, a delegation of Jewish religious leaders visited the town of Beit Fajar and examined the destruction caused by the fire two days ago. They emphasized that the Jewish religion is innocent of the perpetrators.

The delegation included Fruman, rabbi of the settlement of Tekoa - a settlement which is situated on the land of the Taqoa village and in which settlement construction work is continuing, as well as Rabi Aharon Lichtenstein and Rabbi Alex [sic - should be Shlomo] Riskin.
Bethlehem District Governor, Abd Al-Fatah Hamail, received the delegation inside the mosque, and said that the Palestinian side appreciates the visit, but wants real actions that will help towards the capture of the criminals who carried out [the vandalism]. He described the fire in the mosque as a cheap act, far removed from human moral values, and reflecting the degree of hatred and animosity of the perpetrators, who represent a great threat to both Palestinians and Israelis...

Hamail said that the Palestinian people desires a just peace... and emphasized that the three [monotheistic] religions are tolerant religions, far removed from fanaticism and hatred, since all of them have explicitly established freedom of religion and the need for mutual respect.
Hamail called upon the Israeli side to investigate the circumstances of this action, and questioned whether the Israeli security [forces] have really been unable so far to discover the perpetrators.

The delegation of rabbis emphasized that the aim of their visit to the town of Beit Fajar was to express solidarity with the residents and with the Muslims of Palestine. They said that those who had carried out the action are singularly far removed from the Jewish religion, and announced that the expression, "Allah is great" is an expression that belongs to all three [monotheistic] religions, since God is greater than all such actions. They emphasized that they seek peace and justice.

They expressed the hope that peace will be attained in the Holy Land, because the monotheistic religions are based on coexistence and peace."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 6, 2010]


PS Here's another news item that caught my attention today:


2000 blue and white balloons to greet Ahmadinejad

Arutz-7 reports that Ayoub Kara, a Likud Druze member of the Knesset, plans to launch 2000 blue and white balloons at the northern border when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits Lebanon:

“We are planning to fly 2,000 balloons across the northern border to Lebanon when Ahmadinejad comes for a visit Wednesday,” Kara told Voice of Israel radio. “The balloons represent the fact that the Jewish people have come home after 2,000 years of exile, and they are not going anywhere.” Kara, who is himself not Jewish, said that he appreciated Israel's freedom and democracy – and that were it not for the Jewish people, the entire Middle East would look like Iran.

“It was my idea to organize the event, and I am hoping that thousands will come,” Kara said of the rally, set for 11 a.m. Wednesday in the northern border town of Metulla.

[khib70]

What good would a settlement freeze do, khib?

BTW I did not know that the settlement freeze applies to building inside existing Jewish communities, i.e., municipalities cannot build anything including extensions to existing properties. Do you know if this is the case?

On another note, here's an item which shakes a range of prejudices.

It's from PalWatch but is a positive news story from the Pal press, showing that PalWatch does appreciate good news and that the Pal press is capable of producing it. It also shows that there are Arabs and Jews in Judea and Samaria who are making peace with each other, regardless of what their leaders are up to:



PS Here's another news item that caught my attention today:

Fergus, as someone who believes in a two state solution, I accept that concessions have to be made on both sides. If we want recognition of Israel's right to exist within mutually agreed boundaries, it seems fair to concede that the stealthy expansion of these boundaries by building settlements on Palestinian land is not acceptable. Of course, to some, it's all "Palestinian land" and to others, none of it is. Lines have to be drawn in the sand so that a negotiated agreement becomes possible.

The settlement policy is stealth colonisation, and suits most those zealots (most of whom seem to live in settlements) who cannot accept any kind of Arab presence inside an inflated, biblically inspired notion of what consitutes Eretz Israel. There will be no peace for anyone, and no end to terrorist attacks if these people have their way.

I'm not suggesting that we need a settlement freeze because Hamas, or the PA, or the worldwide anti-Israel movement want one. It's because Jewish people need it to get any kind of guarantee of living there in peace as a legitimate sovereigh state in future generations.

I like the story about the mosque, and it rather illustrates the exact point I'm making above. If no one learns the value of coexistence and mutual recognition, then everyone is doomed. Not the kind of story you're going to read in the Guardian, I suspect:greengrin And since it comes from Palwatch it's probably made up.:rolleyes:

As to expansions of existing legal Jewish settlements, that's a tricky one. Some guy building a conservatory on the back of his house hardly constitutes settlement. However, if you allow this it's open to misuse. Someone building another 500 houses on to a small enclave of 50 houses would clearly not be acceptable.

I'll trade land for peace any day - there's no alternative. (Up to a point of course. I wouldn't be conceding Jerusalem any day soon, but I can't see any future in trying to ethnically "purify" it by whacking up more settlements)

This op-ed piece from Haaretz pretty well sums up what I think on the settlement issue.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-freeze-as-a-test-1.313885

[LiverpoolHibs]

No I didn't. You're not getting it.

I really, really am.


The truth of the basis of the conflict is not as simplistic as you like to paint. Its not quite as bad a generalisation certainly as 'War on Terror' but certainly a generalisation.
Ok, as I say whenever someone makes a comment along these lines, point out the generalisations and/or point out any simplification - don't just assert it, which is all anyone ever seems to do. You've already failed to point out my apparent 'twisting' or 'ignoring' when asked to do so.

Your contention was that the UN findings on the boat boarding would make a difference to the situation. Mine was that it would make no difference. You are now seeking to turn that into a much broader argument about the historical 'truth' on the origins of the conflict which was not what you were originally saying.
Hold on, you brought up the history of the conflict - not me. You doubted that the truth about such events becoming apparent had any impact on the conflict at all and then claimed that the truth about the situation had been known for decades. It was obviously then necessary for me to point out why you were talking rubbish and the argument went from there. I didn't shift what I was saying at any point.

Regardless, the two are completely interconnected as it's about the process of slowly but surely breaking through the propaganda, lies and hasbara that have been so astonishingly effective in shielding Israel from criticism, condemnation and practical measures to rein them in whilst a massive and protracted injustice has been committed.

Out of curiosity which foundational myths do you reject?

Well all of them, because they're myths...


I am not going to provide you with a bunch of citations on this theme. See above re where you started on this.

Likewise.


You are either extraordinarily naive or being deliberately (presumably politically motivated ) obtuse. Even if we disagree on the origins and complexity of the conflict, what you call 'balancing up' is a pre-requisite of any move forward. If you imagine change is possible without the respective leaderships changing their actions you must have spent your life so far in a library.

No. Telling the truth is the pre-requisite of moving forward. And they are, categorically, not the same thing.


Did you not feel like engaging on this point?

I did engage with it, such as there was a point with which to engage. I said I had no idea how you thought that backed your point up. Elaborate and I might be able to add something.

The only other observation is that I think it's fairly clear that you realised how ludicrous it was to say that the 'main usage' of 'War on Terror' was from within the media and therefore had to fall back on something else, ie. that Obama changing the title of the operation and the media not immediately doing the same somehow proved your point. The logic of which is just appalling.


Dead right. Russia wants to to be a progressive European power and its outlook (vast gas supplies notwithstanding) is one of someone who wants tojoint the club. China is a different ball game altogether. Doesn't need to join the club because its effectively big enough to be its own club and shortly to be bigger than the club. That's why they're uncontrollable on climate change and everything else. This is where political theory goes out of the window. This is a nation so cash rich it doesn't know what to buy next and a superpower so big in its own region that no-one messes with it including the US. The only reason it hasn't been a bigger global player so far is that it is as it has always been more interested in its own vast internal territory. Your points on their use of WoT as justification is to completely misunderstand their motivations and their increasingly dismissive approach to the liberal blandishments of the West.

You don't know anything about this do you? As you have taken the trouble to argue already simplistic generalisations don't cut it and lumping the Chinese in with the Russians here is exactly that. Ask any diplomat who has served in South East Asia - the Chinese are different from EVERYONE else.- do you really believe they would have done any differently had they not been anle to pray in aid the WoT? That really is assinine.

Yes, that's right, I don't know anything about it. Well observed and a fantastic way to conduct the debate.

I'm not making a simplistic generalisation and I'm not lumping anyone with anyone else; saying that China and Russia share a number of similarities in this regard is not to say that China and Russia occupy exactly the same position in the world on all matters - it seems you're reading what you want to rather than what is actually there.

To re-cap, I've observed that China and Russia have both used, and continue to use, the rhetoric and ideological power of appeals to the global 'War on Terror' in terms of their own internal conflicts. You seem to think that the one and only reason for China doing this is as a 'get it up ye' to the West. I think this is a foolish and pretty ignorant way to look at things and provided a concrete example of how China has benefited from the arrangement in terms of U.S. treatment of Uyghur nationalists/separatists such as the E.T.I.M.; you haven't provided any evidence of anything to support your case. Claiming that China can and does just do whatever it wants in the world is absolutely ridiculous.

So, if we're getting into hypotheticals. Could China have expected the same level of cooperation from Western authorities (including the freezing and seizing of assets, imprisoning of individuals in Guantanamo Bay, outlawing organisations from operating in the U.S. and Europe, observation of groups and individuals - particularly as there is a large Uyghur community in America) had they not played upon the idea of the global 'War on Terror'? Maybe they even believe it...

What's more, I think it's also a case of China recognising the need to enter a bit of a power-politics battle over it. They're attempting to ensure that they have a degree of influence in what was formed as a largely Anglo-American idea and has become the defining narrative of this century - ensuring that they do not become marginalised over such events. It doesn't take a genius to work out that China would be distinctly unhappy with American unilateralism in areas rapidly coming under their sphere of influence. And that couples in turn with a desire to avoid weapons (nuclear and non-nuclear) proliferation in Asia.


Your answer here goes beyond trite. It is dangerously self regarding, irrelevant, student politics nonsense. Of course objectively it is in one sense right but in terms of realpolitik it isn't worth anything more than a set piece press release statement of position. Meanwhile people still get killed. As long as you have killing and the use of weapons you have both a barrier to the very changes you say are the first order of business and the perfect cover for not engaging in those.

This is getting silly again. There's nothing unrealistic about what I've said unless you subscribe to the 'if the Palestinians put down their guns there'll be no more war, if the Israelis put down their guns they'll be no more Israel' line of idiocy. If you think it is Palestinian violence that is the barrier to an equitable settlement of the conflict then make the argument rather than throwing semi-abusive adjectives around willy-nilly.

Why on earth - given the comparative plight of the 'two sides', the comparative level of abuses caused by each, the respective levels of power of each, the misery in which one 'side' lives, what one 'side' has lost and what the other has gained - is there any sort of focus on what the Palestinians have to do in order to secure peace? It's a disgusting suggestion.


I need to reflect on this bit and frankly my dinner is ready

What did you have?


Did you put it there then?

I must have done.

[Twa Cairpets]

Ok, as I say whenever someone makes a comment along these lines, point out the generalisations and/or point out any simplification - don't just assert it, which is all anyone ever seems to do. You've already failed to point out my apparent 'twisting' or 'ignoring' when asked to do so....

...Why on earth - given the comparative plight of the 'two sides', the comparative level of abuses caused by each, the respective levels of power of each, the misery in which one 'side' lives, what one 'side' has lost and what the other has gained - is there any sort of focus on what the Palestinians have to do in order to secure peace? It's a disgusting suggestion.


I'm not nearly as passionate or clued-up on the topic of this rather fine thread as many of the contrbutors, but have enjoyed reading it. This post did strike me particularly though.

I think, LH, that you contradict yourself. You are clearly asserting that the balance of blame and suffering is all on one side. It might well be the case (and from what I take from the thread there probably is), but there is example after example given within this thread alone of appalingness on both sides. That cannot be just swept away and ignored because one side is worse than the other.

It is not, I suspect, (despite your assertion to the contrary) a matter of absolutes regarding what either side on the conflict needs to do or not to do to achieve peace or a settlement. What is absolutely clear to me is that there must be some movement on both sides - to suggest that the mere thought of the Palestinians having to compromise is "disgusting" is political naivety at best, and unhelpful uber-dogmatism at worst, surely.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm not nearly as passionate or clued-up on the topic of this rather fine thread as many of the contrbutors, but have enjoyed reading it. This post did strike me particularly though.

I think, LH, that you contradict yourself. You are clearly asserting that the balance of blame and suffering is all on one side. It might well be the case (and from what I take from the thread there probably is), but there is example after example given within this thread alone of appalingness on both sides. That cannot be just swept away and ignored because one side is worse than the other.

It is not, I suspect, (despite your assertion to the contrary) a matter of absolutes regarding what either side on the conflict needs to do or not to do to achieve peace or a settlement. What is absolutely clear to me is that there must be some movement on both sides - to suggest that the mere thought of the Palestinians having to compromise is "disgusting" is political naivety at best, and unhelpful uber-dogmatism at worst, surely.

Firstly, I'm not contradicting myself and I'm certainly not asserting that all the suffering is on one side, that would be silly. Just that the suffering, injuries deaths are skewed enormously and indisputably in one direction. I am making an assertion there (though not the one you suggest) but I have explained myself on the point of why attempts at creating balance or equivalence in the conflict are not just wrong-headed and irrational but also politically and morally malicious - on this and many other threads.

On the wider point, I don't think you're right, no. I don't know what compromise you or anyone else expect the Palestinian people to make. Or even what compromises it is possible for them to make. The Palestinians are not illegally occupying land outside their recognised borders, the Palestinians are not building ethnocratic settlements on illegally occupied land (with the support of state institutions) with the express intention of taking this land into their state and the Palestinians are not illegally block the right of return of refugees as a means of retaining a demographically 'stable' state.

The P.L.O. made an absolutely incredible compromise in 1993 when they accepted the right of Israel to exist and all that served to do was feed Israeli rejectionism and consign Palestinians to the possibility of permanent statelesness.

There is no dogma or naivete in recognising that there is no balance whatsoever to the conflict and I stand by the statement that there is a real ethical 'awfulness' about any argument that looks at the history of the Palestinians in the 20th and 21st Centuries and asserts that they have a moral responsibility still to be carried out, that they owe something.

[Twa Cairpets]

Firstly, I'm not contradicting myself and I'm certainly not asserting that all the suffering is on one side, that would be silly. Just that the suffering, injuries deaths are skewed enormously and indisputably in one direction. I am making an assertion there (though not the one you suggest) but I have explained myself on the point of why attempts at creating balance or equivalence in the conflict are not just wrong-headed and irrational but also politically and morally malicious - on this and many other threads.
Im not suggesting at any time that equivalence or balance is sought - you'll notice I agreed with you that the there is an iniquity. But what you appear to be suggesting is that the imbalance itself is such that all the opprobrium and blame be heaped on one side, and essentially ignored or accepted. If its your view, then I dont agree with it.


On the wider point, I don't think you're right, no. I don't know what compromise you or anyone else expect the Palestinian people to make. Or even what compromises it is possible for them to make. The Palestinians are not illegally occupying land outside their recognised borders, the Palestinians are not building ethnocratic settlements on illegally occupied land (with the support of state institutions) with the express intention of taking this land into their state and the Palestinians are not illegally block the right of return of refugees as a means of retaining a demographically 'stable' state.I'm not as I said clued up on this, but Im quite sure that there are claims and demands made by the Palestinians that would be unpalatable to Israel - dont ask me what they are, I'm sure khib70 will be along in a minute. For you to suggest that there is nothing in the stance, status or future demands of the Palestinians that is less than immutable I just dont believe. Just to confirm I'm also pretty sure that the amount of compromise or movement from current positions is far, far greater for Israel.


The P.L.O. made an absolutely incredible compromise in 1993 when they accepted the right of Israel to exist and all that served to do was feed Israeli rejectionism and consign Palestinians to the possibility of permanent statelesness.
But that is what happened, and it is where we are. Bemoaning what happened doesnt make the case for the alternative any stronger.


There is no dogma or naivete in recognising that there is no balance whatsoever to the conflict and I stand by the statement that there is a real ethical 'awfulness' about any argument that looks at the history of the Palestinians in the 20th and 21st Centuries and asserts that they have a moral responsibility still to be carried out, that they owe something.

Well, that kind of depends on what points from history you wish to cherrypick. This reads like you believe that any and all acts of violence, terrorism or other atrocity carried out by Palestinians, ever, is completely justified and can be wiped out due to the balance of atrocities being carried out by Israel. If this is what you're saying, then you're simply reducing your argument to a scorecard.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Im not suggesting at any time that equivalence or balance is sought - you'll notice I agreed with you that the there is an iniquity. But what you appear to be suggesting is that the imbalance itself is such that all the opprobrium and blame be heaped on one side, and essentially ignored or accepted. If its your view, then I dont agree with it.

It depends what you mean by it being 'all heaped on one side'. I'm not denying, for example, that Palestinian militants have carried out some absolutely appalling and indefensible acts but I do not think that the Palestinians share any genuine blame in halting (or slowing) the possibility of an equitable settlement. Which is to say, I don't think they have acted any differently than any other nation would have under identical circumstances.

I think the mistake many people who harbour some degree of sympathy with what has happened to the Palestinians make, and which you seem to be heading towards here, is that they treat the conflict as a case of two equally culpable combatants one of whom just has a greater potential for causing harm than the other; rather than as something structural and dependent on ideology.


I'm not as I said clued up on this, but Im quite sure that there are claims and demands made by the Palestinians that would be unpalatable to Israel - dont ask me what they are, I'm sure khib70 will be along in a minute. For you to suggest that there is nothing in the stance, status or future demands of the Palestinians that is less than immutable I just dont believe. Just to confirm I'm also pretty sure that the amount of compromise or movement from current positions is far, far greater for Israel.

That's pretty telling in itself, isn't it?

It's not really for me to say whether these things are immutable. That's for the Palestinians to decide, I'd have thought. I do know that they cling to the concept of thawabet - which translates roughly as 'the constants' of the struggle against occupation - pretty tightly and include things such as the right to self-determination, the right to resistance, the right of return and the right to restitution and compensation. I don't think they'll ever be compromised on - and not just by the 'bloody killers and murderers' OneDaySoon references...


But that is what happened, and it is where we are. Bemoaning what happened doesnt make the case for the alternative any stronger.

Well quite, which should tell people something.


Well, that kind of depends on what points from history you wish to cherrypick. This reads like you believe that any and all acts of violence, terrorism or other atrocity carried out by Palestinians, ever, is completely justified and can be wiped out due to the balance of atrocities being carried out by Israel. If this is what you're saying, then you're simply reducing your argument to a scorecard.

No, it doesn't read like that and I've never said anything like that. They might possibly be explicable, but that's not the same as being justified. I suggested this film - Arna's Children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6EXrA3UFwM) - earlier in the thread for people who want to gain an understanding of the journey of the average Palestinian militant. It's an absolutely stunning and heart-breaking documentary.

What do you mean by the first sentence?

[Twa Cairpets]

That's pretty telling in itself, isn't it?
No.

As I've said at least twice, I have no deep knowledge of the detail of the conflict, but to quote myself "...but Im quite sure that there are claims and demands made by the Palestinians that would be unpalatable to Israel". To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. My inability to list them for you does not mean they do not exist.


It's not really for me to say whether these things are immutable. That's for the Palestinians to decide, I'd have thought. I do know that they cling to the concept of thawabet - which translates roughly as 'the constants' of the struggle against occupation - pretty tightly and include things such as the right to self-determination, the right to resistance, the right of return and the right to restitution and compensation. I don't think they'll ever be compromised on - and not just by the 'bloody killers and murderers' OneDaySoon references...
Maybe it is, but as youve been arguing this exact point for the totality of this thread, it does suggest it is your view also.



Well quite, which should tell people something.
I dont understand the point of this post.


No, it doesn't read like that and I've never said anything like that. They might possibly be explicable, but that's not the same as being justified.

LH, whether or not you intended to it to read that way, as a reader with a largely neutral viewpoint on this topic, it did read like that. This is the first I can recall that you've accepted that there is anything that the palestinians have ever done wrong.


What do you mean by the first sentence?
You said "There is no dogma or naivete in recognising that there is no balance whatsoever to the conflict and I stand by the statement that there is a real ethical 'awfulness' about any argument that looks at the history of the Palestinians in the 20th and 21st Centuries and asserts that they have a moral responsibility still to be carried out, that they owe something.

If you look at the point of history where the PLO were an extremely active terrorist organisation, then your statement becomes wrong. If you're claiming that there position has now changed enough to warrant that "debt" being paid, then that is fine, but it still comes down to you making the balance of "right" a scorecard of atrocity.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Maybe it is, but as youve been arguing this exact point for the totality of this thread, it does suggest it is your view also.

No, I haven't - and certainly not for the totality of the thread. In some recent posts I've suggested that there is something very, very wrong in someone looking at the conflict, studying its history (or even having a cursory knowledge) and responding to it in such a way that one of their primary questions or concerns is what the Palestinians have to do to solve the conflict. I think that is obscene.

I think it's mad that intelligent people (such as yourself) don't - after gaining enough knowledge to have a viable opinion - demand that either Israel ends the occupation or that they give everyone under their authority equal rights. It is a simple, uncomplicated demand that anyone who believes in basic human rights should be making and they should not have to figure it in such a way that it requires of the Palestinians anything more than a cessation of hostilities once the process is under way.


I dont understand the point of this post.

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.


LH, whether or not you intended to it to read that way, as a reader with a largely neutral viewpoint on this topic, it did read like that. This is the first I can recall that you've accepted that there is anything that the palestinians have ever done wrong.

Regardless of whether you are a neutral reader or not, it did not read that way and you will be unable to find a single post of mine in which I have stated or implied that:

"...any and all acts of violence, terrorism or other atrocity carried out by Palestinians, ever, is completely justified and can be wiped out due to the balance of atrocities being carried out by Israel."

That is a complete and utter fabrication and bears no relation to anything I've posted. If you genuinely think that throughout posting on this subject I have never suggested that Palestinian individuals and groups have committed acts which are morally and legally indefensible and unjustifiable then you either need to pay more attention and/or avoid making such fanciful and innacurate claims.


You said "There is no dogma or naivete in recognising that there is no balance whatsoever to the conflict and I stand by the statement that there is a real ethical 'awfulness' about any argument that looks at the history of the Palestinians in the 20th and 21st Centuries and asserts that they have a moral responsibility still to be carried out, that they owe something.

If you look at the point of history where the PLO were an extremely active terrorist organisation, then your statement becomes wrong. If you're claiming that there position has now changed enough to warrant that "debt" being paid, then that is fine, but it still comes down to you making the balance of "right" a scorecard of atrocity.

But you've made a point of ignoring and not quoting the part of my previous post that dealt exactly with the difficulty you're having here; that the conflict stems (and continues) from something structural and ideological and not from a history of acts of violence on both sides, it's nothing to do with a 'scorecard of atrocity' and you've had this explained to you previously, if I remember correctly. Until you grasp that point you're not going to get anywhere. If you, as you say, consider the point at which the P.L.O. were an extremely active organisation nothing whatsoever changes at the base of the conflict to shift the weight of injustice. What you have is a great number of military activities carried out, many of which were murderous, despicable and unjustifiable by anyone with a degree of moral compunction - but none of which alter the base injustices of the conflict that motivated the actions of young men and women no different to anyone anywhere else in the world.

There is no structural injustice/debt that it is possible for the Palestinians to pay because they have committed no structural injustices or misdeeds. Conversely, Israel has committed both acts of terrorism against the Palestinians and owes the structural debt of having formed and exclusionary, ethnocratic nation state on a land already populated with people who were, to a great degree, not of that ethnicity and therefore had to carry out a campaign of expulsion, ethnic cleansing, ghettoisation and the denial of basic human rights.

[Twa Cairpets]

No, I haven't - and certainly not for the totality of the thread. In some recent posts I've suggested that there is something very, very wrong in someone looking at the conflict, studying its history (or even having a cursory knowledge) and responding to it in such a way that one of their primary questions or concerns is what the Palestinians have to do to solve the conflict. I think that is obscene.

I think it's mad that intelligent people (such as yourself) don't - after gaining enough knowledge to have a viable opinion - demand that either Israel ends the occupation or that they give everyone under their authority equal rights. It is a simple, uncomplicated demand that anyone who believes in basic human rights should be making and they should not have to figure it in such a way that it requires of the Palestinians anything more than a cessation of hostilities once the process is under way.

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.

Regardless of whether you are a neutral reader or not, it did not read that way and you will be unable to find a single post of mine in which I have stated or implied that:

"...any and all acts of violence, terrorism or other atrocity carried out by Palestinians, ever, is completely justified and can be wiped out due to the balance of atrocities being carried out by Israel."

That is a complete and utter fabrication and bears no relation to anything I've posted. If you genuinely think that throughout posting on this subject I have never suggested that Palestinian individuals and groups have committed acts which are morally and legally indefensible and unjustifiable then you either need to pay more attention and/or avoid making such fanciful and innacurate claims.

But you've made a point of ignoring and not quoting the part of my previous post that dealt exactly with the difficulty you're having here; that the conflict stems (and continues) from something structural and ideological and not from a history of acts of violence on both sides, it's nothing to do with a 'scorecard of atrocity' and you've had this explained to you previously, if I remember correctly. Until you grasp that point you're not going to get anywhere. If you, as you say, consider the point at which the P.L.O. were an extremely active organisation nothing whatsoever changes at the base of the conflict to shift the weight of injustice. What you have is a great number of military activities carried out, many of which were murderous, despicable and unjustifiable by anyone with a degree of moral compunction - but none of which alter the base injustices of the conflict that motivated the actions of young men and women no different to anyone anywhere else in the world.

There is no structural injustice/debt that it is possible for the Palestinians to pay because they have committed no structural injustices or misdeeds. Conversely, Israel has committed both acts of terrorism against the Palestinians and owes the structural debt of having formed and exclusionary, ethnocratic nation state on a land already populated with people who were, to a great degree, not of that ethnicity and therefore had to carry out a campaign of expulsion, ethnic cleansing, ghettoisation and the denial of basic human rights.

You'll maybe forgive me for not undertaking a point-for-point analysis of your post, but if I may make a few points in general:

1. Unless you're camped inside my head, I hope you will allow that my interpretation of what you've written is my interpretation of what you've written. The failing is, I would suggest, less an issue of my understanding but rather more one of your delivery. As you've graciously conceded, I agree I have some intelligence, and somewhat object to being told what it is that I think.

As a specific instance of where i believe you claim there is now zero culpability for Palestine, how's this: "...Why on earth - given the comparative plight of the 'two sides', the comparative level of abuses caused by each, the respective levels of power of each, the misery in which one 'side' lives, what one 'side' has lost and what the other has gained - is there any sort of focus on what the Palestinians have to do in order to secure peace? It's a disgusting suggestion."? I struggle to interpret that in any other way than the way I have.

2."...you either need to pay more attention and/or avoid making such fanciful and innacurate claims."
"...the part of my previous post that dealt exactly with the difficulty you're having here"
"then you either need to pay more attention and/or avoid making such fanciful and innacurate claims."

Just wondering if it would be possible maybe for you to crank up the patronising tone a bit for your next post...?


3. "I think it's mad that intelligent people (such as yourself) don't - after gaining enough knowledge to have a viable opinion - demand that either Israel ends the occupation or that they give everyone under their authority equal rights."

Well, because people get passionate about different things. Things that get me motivated to act and change, such as the impact of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo masquerading as medicine, probably don't particularly interest you. it doesnt make me automatically on the other side.

For what its worth, and as I have mildly alluded to in the last few points, I'm broadly on your side, and when you concentrate on facts rather than rhetoric and polemic your posts, it helps to clarify my stance because you clearly have a huge knowledge of the subject.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You'll maybe forgive me for not undertaking a point-for-point analysis of your post, but if I may make a few points in general:

Certainly.


1. Unless you're camped inside my head, I hope you will allow that my interpretation of what you've written is my interpretation of what you've written. The failing is, I would suggest, less an issue of my understanding but rather more one of your delivery. As you've graciously conceded, I agree I have some intelligence, and somewhat object to being told what it is that I think.

I didn't doubt it was your interpretation of what I've written and I'm certainly not telling you what you think. I was stating that your interpretation is wrong.


As a specific instance of where i believe you claim there is now zero culpability for Palestine, how's this: "...Why on earth - given the comparative plight of the 'two sides', the comparative level of abuses caused by each, the respective levels of power of each, the misery in which one 'side' lives, what one 'side' has lost and what the other has gained - is there any sort of focus on what the Palestinians have to do in order to secure peace? It's a disgusting suggestion."? I struggle to interpret that in any other way than the way I have.

But again, how are you using culpability? Culpability for what?

For having committed some horrendous, unjustifiable and indefensible acts? Yes, of course. For initiating and driving the conflict? No. As I keep saying they have acted as any other people would have acted given similar circumstances.

There's nothing in that passage that even suggests I think that Palestinians haven't 'done anything wrong' or that, as you claimed, every Palestinian atrocity is/was justified. It doesn't have anything to do with that.


2."...you either need to pay more attention and/or avoid making such fanciful and innacurate claims."
"...the part of my previous post that dealt exactly with the difficulty you're having here"
"then you either need to pay more attention and/or avoid making such fanciful and innacurate claims."

Just wondering if it would be possible maybe for you to crank up the patronising tone a bit for your next post...?

Apologies if it sounded patronising but it's really quite annoying that you're making these claims when they don't have any relation to anything I've written.


Well, because people get passionate about different things. Things that get me motivated to act and change, such as the impact of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo masquerading as medicine, probably don't particularly interest you. it doesnt make me automatically on the other side.

For what its worth, and as I have mildly alluded to in the last few points, I'm broadly on your side, and when you concentrate on facts rather than rhetoric and polemic your posts, it helps to clarify my stance because you clearly have a huge knowledge of the subject.

Yep, and that is perfectly justified and I'm not suggesting anyone is on the other side or an immoral person if they don't take a huge interest. It's more the case of people who do show an interest and don't then take what I think is an eminently sensible, moral and rational position on it.

[One Day Soon]

[QUOTE=LiverpoolHibs;2606257]


Apologies if it sounded patronising but it's really quite annoying that you're making these claims when they don't have any relation to anything I've written.


QUOTE]

If?

Do you even accept that there are two sides to this dispute?

[hibsbollah]

I think it's mad that intelligent people (such as yourself) don't - after gaining enough knowledge to have a viable opinion - demand that either Israel ends the occupation or that they give everyone under their authority equal rights. It is a simple, uncomplicated demand that anyone who believes in basic human rights should be making and they should not have to figure it in such a way that it requires of the Palestinians anything more than a cessation of hostilities once the process is under way.

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.



Leaving aside the 'is LH being patronising or not' debate, the section above is the most articulate 3 paragraph assessment of the Israel-Palestinian situation I can remember reading:top marks

[LiverpoolHibs]

If?

Do you even accept that there are two sides to this dispute?

Hang on, what have we been discussing during the last series of posts?

[One Day Soon]

Hang on, what have we been discussing during the last series of posts?

Is that a yes or a no?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Is that a yes or a no?

Given that the question relates to what we have been discussing (in considerably less simplistic and meaningless terms) in the last series of posts, I direct you towards them.

I don't really see the point in repeating myself.

[One Day Soon]

Given that the question relates to what we have been discussing (in considerably less simplistic and meaningless terms) in the last series of posts, I direct you towards them.

I don't really see the point in repeating myself.

You could have used a lot less letters just typing 'no'.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You could have used a lot less letters just typing 'no'.

You could have saved a whole lot more by reading the series of posts above on the subject.

[One Day Soon]

You could have saved a whole lot more by reading the series of posts above on the subject.

I did. Your position is disingenuous at best.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I did. Your position is disingenuous at best.

If you read them, why did you ask that question?

[One Day Soon]

If you read them, why did you ask that question?

That is self evident as is your simplistic stance

[LiverpoolHibs]

That is self evident as is your simplistic stance

Ok, do you plan on pointing out the disingenuousness or any of the simplifications?

[One Day Soon]

Ok, do you plan on pointing out the disingenuousness or any of the simplifications?

Do you plan on answering the question I put to you?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Do you plan on answering the question I put to you?

Really quite incredible...

[magpie1892]

Really quite incredible...

Why not just answer the question? You pose enough of your own in your endless posts.

Yes or no?

[discman]

Why not just answer the question? You pose enough of your own in your endless posts.

Yes or no?


If you have been following this thread you'd appreciate that its not as simplistic as yes or no or maybe you hav'nt read them? :cool2:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why not just answer the question? You pose enough of your own in your endless posts.

Yes or no?

Because, as I've said:

Given that the question relates to what we have been discussing (in considerably less simplistic and meaningless terms) in the last series of posts, I direct you towards them.

I don't really see the point in repeating myself.

He's just attempting a reductio ad absurdum approach to what was a sensible debate - with which he can disagree if he wants to.

[magpie1892]

Because, as I've said:

Given that the question relates to what we have been discussing (in considerably less simplistic and meaningless terms) in the last series of posts, I direct you towards them.

I don't really see the point in repeating myself.

He's just attempting a reductio ad absurdum approach to what was a sensible debate - with which he can disagree if he wants to.

You really don't do yourself any favours with this sort of carry on. You were really patronising earlier and qualified your 'apology' with 'if' (and also a 'but' caveat, as per) which prompted the question - a reasonable one in my opinion, but also a little rhetorical as I think your (truthful) answer would be a resounding 'no'.

'Inflexible' doesn't mean 'tough' you know, not in this context. Your refusal to bend one iota and consider an opinion other than your own really does you a disservice.

A pity, as you clearly have a fairly capable mind.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You really don't do yourself any favours with this sort of carry on. You were really patronising earlier and qualified your 'apology' with 'if' (and also a 'but' caveat, as per) which prompted the question - a reasonable one in my opinion, but also a little rhetorical as I think your (truthful) answer would be a resounding 'no'.

What sort of carry on?

My truthful answer is to direct him to what has already been discussed and refuse to get engaged in a silly reductio ad absurdum argument. Which is what I've done.


'Inflexible' doesn't mean 'tough' you know, not in this context. Your refusal to bend one iota and consider an opinion other than your own really does you a disservice.

And having a properly thought through, rational approach to the topic doesn't mean being 'inflexible'.

I'm perfectly willing to adjust my position if someone produces a convincing argument as to why I should. But I'm not just going to do so for the sake of it. If I didn't 'consider an opinion other than my own' I wouldn't have responded at length to what Two Carpets and One Day Soon have written recently.


A pity, as you clearly have a fairly capable mind.

Ha, and you were objecting to me being patronising...

[discman]

What sort of carry on?

My truthful answer is to direct him to what has already been discussed and refuse to get engaged in a silly reductio ad absurdum argument. Which is what I've done.



And having a properly thought through, rational approach to the topic doesn't mean being 'inflexible'.

I'm perfectly willing to adjust my position if someone produces a convincing argument as to why I should. But I'm not just going to do so for the sake of it. If I didn't 'consider an opinion other than my own' I wouldn't have responded at length to what Two Carpets and One Day Soon have written recently.



Ha, and you were objecting to me being patronising...


:top marks

[magpie1892]

Ha, and you were objecting to me being patronising...

Yes, I thought you might like that...

[One Day Soon]

You really don't do yourself any favours with this sort of carry on. You were really patronising earlier and qualified your 'apology' with 'if' (and also a 'but' caveat, as per) which prompted the question - a reasonable one in my opinion, but also a little rhetorical as I think your (truthful) answer would be a resounding 'no'.

'Inflexible' doesn't mean 'tough' you know, not in this context. Your refusal to bend one iota and consider an opinion other than your own really does you a disservice.

A pity, as you clearly have a fairly capable mind.

Nail squarely hit on head.

He's made up his mind in satisfyingly black and white terms that all the right is one one side and all the wrong on the other and thereafter everything else is a self-regarding intellectual game completely disengaged from any realpolitik.

All that has to happen is that Israel either grants full citizenship rights thoughout the territory it currently occupies or it withdraws completely from occupied territories. Fantastic. That's Saturday sorted, what shall we do on Sunday?

[ballengeich]

Nail squarely hit on head.

He's made up his mind in satisfyingly black and white terms that all the right is one one side and all the wrong on the other and thereafter everything else is a self-regarding intellectual game completely disengaged from any realpolitik.

All that has to happen is that Israel either grants full citizenship rights thoughout the territory it currently occupies or it withdraws completely from occupied territories. Fantastic. That's Saturday sorted, what shall we do on Sunday?

:top marks

LH's suggestion of full citizenship rights throught the occupied territories would achieve his goal of Israel ceasing to be a state with a Jewish majority and is therefore not something any Israeli government would agree to. It takes no account of any fears which Jews (and Christian Arabs) might have of a possible Islamist regime in the resulting state.

His suggestion of complete withdrawal seems to be based on a Hamas offer of a 10 year ceasefire. Again, how can anyone expect Israel to take this seriously. The Israeli removal of settlers from Gaza was a considerable internal political risk. Unfortunately elements of the Palestinian population then used Gaza as a base for attacks on Israel, hardening attitudes on both sides. Hamas can declare a ceasefire at any time, Israeli retaliation to attacks would cease and lives would be saved (not a priority to LH if I understand your earlier correspondence).

Israel does many things that are wrong, and damaging to its own long-term interests, but the interests, fears and rights of its people still have to been taken account of if practical suggestions to solve real-life problems are to be produced.

Putting forward simplistic suggestions merely reveals the shallowness of the poster's understanding of the history and politics of the region.

[Betty Boop]

"Ripples Crossing" an American's journey through Occupied Palestine. In six parts .

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

[magpie1892]

Nail squarely hit on head.

He's made up his mind in satisfyingly black and white terms that all the right is one one side and all the wrong on the other and thereafter everything else is a self-regarding intellectual game completely disengaged from any realpolitik.

All that has to happen is that Israel either grants full citizenship rights thoughout the territory it currently occupies or it withdraws completely from occupied territories. Fantastic. That's Saturday sorted, what shall we do on Sunday?

I don't know enough about the subject to opine with any authority. What I do know, however, is that LH's common room debating style is actually weakening his argument. His complete failure to engage on anything other than 100% his terms means that there's little point in arguing with him. Questions posed receive questions in response, or go unanswered, real spite bubbles just below the surface (and frequently bubbles over) and when he gets called out for being rude and patronising in extending his arguments, his apologies are so loaded with caveats that you know he's not in the least bit sorry.

He reminds me a little of Gordon Brown. Clearly a decent mind, but so unutterably convinced that he and he alone is right about everything, all the time, that he's gone a bit potty. LH's style is desperately, desperately unattractive and lacks credibility due to his stance and intransigence.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Nail squarely hit on head.

He's made up his mind in satisfyingly black and white terms that all the right is one one side and all the wrong on the other and thereafter everything else is a self-regarding intellectual game completely disengaged from any realpolitik.

All that has to happen is that Israel either grants full citizenship rights thoughout the territory it currently occupies or it withdraws completely from occupied territories. Fantastic. That's Saturday sorted, what shall we do on Sunday?

If you are genuinely interested in the topic being discussed on the thread (unlike the War on Terror aside that you seem to have completely given up on) why are you refusing to respond to the substantial posts I've written on the subject? Why do you seem to prefer to ignore them, reduce them down to an absurd and meaningless question and then converse snidely with other posters who have, similarly, made absolutely no attempt to respond to anything I've written?


:top marks

LH's suggestion of full citizenship rights throught the occupied territories would achieve his goal of Israel ceasing to be a state with a Jewish majority and is therefore not something any Israeli government would agree to. It takes no account of any fears which Jews (and Christian Arabs) might have of a possible Islamist regime in the resulting state.

As with OneDaySoon, why don't you actually reply to what I have written if you object to something or think my logic is flawed rather than getting into a conversation about what you imagine I've written with a different poster entirely?

My suggestion of full citizenship rights throughout the areas under Israeli authority (I know, what a shocking, unconscionable idea) was, as you presumably know, one of the two options I proposed; the other being a two-state settlement on the internationally agreed 1967 borders. I favour the former because I don't support the idea of nation states being based on ethnocratic ideas.

Now, if you think that nations should be able to occupy the land of another people and otherwise violate international law in the defence of an expansionist, ethnocratic state that implicitly gives preferential treatment to people of a certain religion/ethnicity then I think you should be willing to get down to brass-tacks and make that admission - rather than couching it in intellectually dishonest terms and arguments that, you suppose, somehow negate the inherent awfulness of that position.


His suggestion of complete withdrawal seems to be based on a Hamas offer of a 10 year ceasefire. Again, how can anyone expect Israel to take this seriously. The Israeli removal of settlers from Gaza was a considerable internal political risk. Unfortunately elements of the Palestinian population then used Gaza as a base for attacks on Israel, hardening attitudes on both sides. Hamas can declare a ceasefire at any time, Israeli retaliation to attacks would cease and lives would be saved (not a priority to LH if I understand your earlier correspondence).

No, you certainly don't understand my earlier 'correspondence', that much is perfectly clear. *

How about you say why Israel shouldn't take the Hamas offer of a tahadiya/hudna seriously, rather than attempting to back up such a claim with one of the most butchered and purblind version of the 2005 'disengagement' I've ever encountered. The 'withdrawal' from Gaza was actually nothing of the sort - it just shifted what was a de jure occupation to a de facto occupation. Furthermore, the 'withdrawal' was just about as far from an altruistic move by an Israeli government hoping to move towards an equitable settlement as it's possible to get - it was a calculated move designed to remove the possibility of a peaceful, equitable settlement. As such, it's pretty amazing to see you reference this as evidence of Israel's willing to compromise and what you must imagine as the constant war-footing and aggression of the Palestinians. As Dov Weissglass, Ariel Sharon's chief of staff and Israel's chief delegate to the U.S. during the 'disengagement, said;

"The diesngagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the President's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.

[...]

The significance of the diesngagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and on Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole project that is called the Palestinian state - with all that entails - has been removed from the agenda indefinitely. And all this with authority and permission. All with a Presidential blessing and the ratification of both Houses of Congress. What more could have been anticipated? What more could have been given to the settlers?"

The Palestinians just recognised the reality at the time while you are still labouring under a quite incredible misapprehension ten years later. The final sentence, prior to the vile parenthesis, is just incredible.

*I hope that doesn't seem rude, spiteful, patronising or anything, but really - how else am I meant to respond to that sort of drivel?


Israel does many things that are wrong, and damaging to its own long-term interests, but the interests, fears and rights of its people still have to been taken account of if practical suggestions to solve real-life problems are to be produced.

Putting forward simplistic suggestions merely reveals the shallowness of the poster's understanding of the history and politics of the region.

Could you explain in what way I'm not taking account of the rights of the citizens of Israel?

Yes, it's definitely me with the shallow understanding...


I don't know enough about the subject to opine with any authority. What I do know, however, is that LH's common room debating style is actually weakening his argument. His complete failure to engage on anything other than 100% his terms means that there's little point in arguing with him. Questions posed receive questions in response, or go unanswered, real spite bubbles just below the surface (and frequently bubbles over) and when he gets called out for being rude and patronising in extending his arguments, his apologies are so loaded with caveats that you know he's not in the least bit sorry.

He reminds me a little of Gordon Brown. Clearly a decent mind, but so unutterably convinced that he and he alone is right about everything, all the time, that he's gone a bit potty. LH's style is desperately, desperately unattractive and lacks credibility due to his stance and intransigence.

Deary me, all of these posts given over to critical appraisals will give me a big head...

[Sir David Gray]

:stirrer::wink:

Where's FalkirkHibs to defend the indefencible?

I've actually not spent too much time on the Holy Ground in recent months and I've just used the last couple of hours to read through some of the threads that have been on here in that time (this one included).

I think most people on here know my views on the ongoing situation in the Middle East already.

I am not surprised by the flotilla incident in the slightest, there will be many more incidents like this happening in the future.

The whole Middle East problem is something that is, in my opinion, completely and utterly unsolvable. I have said this time and time again and nothing will change my mind on that. It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at the problem, how many peace envoys are sent over there or how many world leaders act as mediators, there is no solution that will ever bring about a true and lasting peace in that region and anyone who thinks otherwise is wasting their time. Again, of course, that is in my opinion.

Replying directly to your post, although it is true to say that I wholeheartedly support the existence, and continued presence, of the state of Israel and I completely support it being recognised as the Jewish homeland, that doesn't necessarily mean that I support all the actions that the Israeli Government is responsible for. For example, I didn't exactly like it when I heard about the stolen British passports scandal. I do, however, believe that everything that happens in this whole conflict is inevitable.

As I have said on previous occasions, I do not believe that the general consensus of "create a two-state solution and everything will be fine" is viable or remotely possible. I also hold entirely contrasting views to the majority when it comes to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I believe that the West Bank, along with the Gaza Strip, is Israeli land and therefore Israel cannot be deemed to be stealing anything and I see nothing wrong with them continuing to build settlements there. East Jerusalem will also never be the capital of any Palestinian state. The whole of the city of Jerusalem will remain entirely under the control of Israel. I realise that opinion is very much in the minority and the opposing viewpoint has the support of international law, but that's my own personal take on the situation.

Those who think that, if Palestine was ever to become a sovereign state, next door to Israel, then all terrorist attacks on Israel would magically stop, are sorely mistaken in my view. Hamas, their cronies from across the border in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and the puppet masters orchestrating the whole thing, Iran, will never, under any circumstances, accept a Jewish presence of any kind on land that they consider to be part of the Muslim world. They will not be content until the state of Israel and all concepts of a Jewish homeland in that region are completely obliterated.

Unlike other conflicts in the past, this is one that will not have a happy and peaceful ending to it.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Replying directly to your post, although it is true to say that I wholeheartedly support the existence, and continued presence, of the state of Israel and I completely support it being recognised as the Jewish homeland, that doesn't necessarily mean that I support all the actions that the Israeli Government is responsible for. For example, I didn't exactly like it when I heard about the stolen British passports scandal. I do, however, believe that everything that happens in this whole conflict is inevitable.

If everything that happens is inevitable why do you say that you don't agree with everything Israel does? If you think everything is heading to armageddon then surely it's impossible for you to have any moral objection to anything that happens.

Why is the passport scandal not part of the eschatology?


As I have said on previous occasions, I do not believe that the general consensus of "create a two-state solution and everything will be fine" is viable or remotely possible. I also hold entirely contrasting views to the majority when it comes to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I believe that the West Bank, along with the Gaza Strip, is Israeli land and therefore Israel cannot be deemed to be stealing anything and I see nothing wrong with them continuing to build settlements there. East Jerusalem will also never be the capital of any Palestinian state. The whole of the city of Jerusalem will remain entirely under the control of Israel. I realise that opinion is very much in the minority and the opposing viewpoint has the support of international law, but that's my own personal take on the situation.

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


Those who think that, if Palestine was ever to become a sovereign state, next door to Israel, then all terrorist attacks on Israel would magically stop, are sorely mistaken in my view. Hamas, their cronies from across the border in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and the puppet masters orchestrating the whole thing, Iran, will never, under any circumstances, accept a Jewish presence of any kind on land that they consider to be part of the Muslim world. They will not be content until the state of Israel and all concepts of a Jewish homeland in that region are completely obliterated.

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.


Unlike other conflicts in the past, this is one that will not have a happy and peaceful ending to it.

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.

[ballengeich]

two options I proposed

When, on another thread, I asked for your proposals, it was to give you an opportunity to put forward ideas for moving towards a peaceful and just resolution to the situation. You've not succeeded. Your theories don't seem to lead to any practical plans of action.

You've taken my view that your proposals are impractical because Israel won't accept them as support for the Israeli government's views and actions. That was not a valid inference and has led you to assume that I have opinions which I do not hold.

As your reply to me was the product of a fault in your use of logic I shall not waste any time commenting on the details. In any case, I doubt whether we can reach enough common starting ground for further debate to be worthwhile.

[LiverpoolHibs]

When, on another thread, I asked for your proposals, it was to give you an opportunity to put forward ideas for moving towards a peaceful and just resolution to the situation. You've not succeeded. Your theories don't seem to lead to any practical plans of action.

My 'theories' aren't in anyway outlandish so I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Most of what I've written recently relates to the fact that the conflict has been prolonged due to the process of not holding Israel to the same standard as other states with reference to the application of international law.

What would you have rather I suggested? What are your ideas for a just and peaceful settlement?


You've taken my view that your proposals are impractical because Israel won't accept them as support for the Israeli government's views and actions. That was not a valid inference and has led you to assume that I have opinions which I do not hold.

I don't think I've made any assumption about what positions you hold. I've responded to what you've written and asked you to explain some assertions, no more. The only part that could even be confused as an assumption was the passage beginning;

"Now, if you think nations should be able to occupy land..."

The implication of the part of your post that was written in response to was that you did believe that but I didn't state definitively that you did - indicated by the use of 'if'.

A number of my recent posts have discussed exactly what you refer to here; if you couch the terms of the debate in what Israel will accept and consider anything else 'impractical' or dead-endist you aren't going to get anywhere and you're certainly not improving the chances of a just settlement, quite the opposite. This is what has been happening for decades and decades and is responsible for the continued immiseration of the Palestinian people in which we are all complicit. The conflict will not be settled until the focus is put on what Israel is entitled to under law. There is nothing mature or pragmatic in obscuring that point because it is not palatable to Israel.


As your reply to me was the product of a fault in your use of logic I shall not waste any time commenting on the details. In any case, I doubt whether we can reach enough common starting ground for further debate to be worthwhile.

I'm fairly sure you haven't pointed out a solitary fault in my logic, or if you have - I've missed it. Besides, I'm not exactly sure why that would stop you replying to the rest of my points, if you actually wanted to. Especially as you haven't stated how I'm not taking account of the rights of Israelis - which is a pretty major point.