Israel - Palestine Conflict. Mod note in OP - updated 1st August

Nodin · 19-08-2014 9:03pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

................. Did our sense of humanity slumber in those years? Did I perhaps miss great outcries of 'Boycott Sudanese Goods'? Was were not supposed to feel passion in the case of that slaughter?

Why would you call for a boycott when they're already under sanctions? whats next, campaign to see people hung twice?

A Dub in Glasgo · 19-08-2014 9:09pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Forgive me gentlemen, but I do not think the actions we have seen in the past month or so can compare in degrees to the level of destruction in both property and human life that we have not only ignored in the past decade, but even denigrated in scale and significance. In the years leading up to 2010, we could not muster anything more than a passing interest for the destruction of more than 300,000 ethnic Fur in Sudan, a slaughter that not only failed to insight our collective ire, our moral indignation or our action, but which we could term only as a 'humanitarian disaster', as though to attribute the deaths to human frailty rather than murderous militias. Did our sense of humanity slumber in those years? Did I perhaps miss great outcries of 'Boycott Sudanese Goods'? Was were not supposed to feel passion in the case of that slaughter?

Are you indulging in a spot of whataboutery?

suicide_circus · 19-08-2014 9:12pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Are you indulging in a spot of whataboutery?

In fairness this thread is full of whataboutery

A Dub in Glasgo · 19-08-2014 9:13pm

Quite possible although not very original from the poster who is injecting 'freshness' into a 'stale' debate to make it less 'one sided'

Tuisceanch · 19-08-2014 9:17pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Forgive me sir, but have I given you the impression that I look upon the events in Gaza and the deaths of so many civilians with anything but the kind of disdain and disappointment that many others here have expressed? I think such actions can be termed most politely as unwise for the Israeli state and more forcefully as a bloody and wilfully destructive campaign of retribution to rocket attacks on Israel.

So your stance is that the motivation of the Israeli government was an act of self defense in accordance with the same narrative that was played out during 'Operation Cast Lead' and the previous operation. You do not consider the actions of the Israeli's in the west bank prior to the rocket firing as being an act of war nor do you consider that the illegal occupation itself is a perpetual act of war?

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Nonetheless I am uncertain that you can lay the blame for the actions in Gaza simply at the door of 'Zionism', which I always found to be a spectacularly nebulous catch-all - what is there in the idea that there should be an Israeli state which inherently demands the slaughter of others, that there is not in the idea that there should be an Irish state? If I might take the opportunity actually, could I ask you what exactly 'Zionism' is?

It is the actions that are more relevant,particularly to the people of Gaza rather than how you want to label the justifications for those actions. It would not be unfair to say that the responsibility for the actions of Israel lay at the door of the government who sanctioned it?

eeepaulo · 19-08-2014 9:21pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Israel's style of public relations

A quick guide to Israel's PR methods:

1. We haven't heard reports of deaths, will check into it;

2. The people were killed, but by a faulty Palestinian rocket/bomb;

3. OK we killed them, but they were terrorists;

4. OK they were civilians, but they were being used as human shields;

5. OK there were no fighters in the area, so it was our mistake. But we kill civilians by accident, they do it on purpose;

6. OK we kill far more civilians than they do, but look at how terrible other countries are!

7. Why are you still talking about Israel? Are you some kind of anti-semite?

Test this against the next interview you hear or watch.

Adam Johannes, Secretary, Cardiff Stop the War Coalition

I think im going to print this out and frame it,

Little CuChulainn · 19-08-2014 9:30pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I just feel like I'm missing something here that everyone else is getting but I'm not, what exactly is it that drives us to such passions over one state and one alone?

Perhaps because it speaks to our own history. Have a read of this and see how many differences you can spot between what happened during the plantations and what is happening in Palestine now.

hju6 · 19-08-2014 9:33pm

Forgive me gentlemen, but I do not think the actions we have seen in the past month or so can compare in degrees to the level of destruction in both property and human life that we have not only ignored in the past decade, but even denigrated in scale and significance. In the years leading up to 2010, we could not muster anything more than a passing interest for the destruction of more than 300,000 ethnic Fur in Sudan, a slaughter that not only failed to insight our collective ire, our moral indignation or our action, but which we could term only as a 'humanitarian disaster', as though to attribute the deaths to human frailty rather than murderous militias. Did our sense of humanity slumber in those years? Did I perhaps miss great outcries of 'Boycott Sudanese Goods'? Was were not supposed to feel passion in the case of that slaughter?

Is that some pathetic excuse for Israels actions, or is it 'monkey see, monkey do'

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 9:33pm

Nodin wrote: »

Evidently you don't remember the boycott Burma campaign, or the campaign to end Apartheid, the campaign to end Indonesian occupation of East Timor....

Sudan is under sanctions, Libya was under sanctions, Syria is under sanctions, Iran is under sanctions, Sri Lanka is under investigation, Russia is under sanctions. Israel will be in the Eurovision song contest.

The campaign to end Apartheid is indeed one of the more frequently mentioned comparisons with Israel however I must call you up on some of these other examples;

Indonesia was never placed under international sanctions and continued to do a booming arms trade with the West during the entire period of its occupation, and I believe its eventual independence might owe a lot more to the downfall of Suharto than anything else - it should be noted the enormous territory of West Papua remains under Indonesian occupation without much ado.

Sri Lanka is indeed under investigation and has in the interim continued an unfettered trade in arms with the UK despite that governments condemnation of Sri Lanka actions following the defeat of the Tamil Tigers (delivered ironically by Baroness Warsi).

Sudan is a case of too little too late, 300,000 are dead and I'm not sure what exactly the implication of those sanctions is supposed to be - are they supposed to stop the Sudanese from making sure they are really dead?

Syria seems to be quite similar to the above, they were placed under sanction yet the conflict still rages and now apparently, Assad is going to become our new lynchpin in face of the rise of the IS.

Russia seems like a reasonably clear case of invading another country and paying for it, although not only have these sanctions been a product of the EU and US rather than the international community, but the most serious, namely a ban on food imports from those two groups, has been instituted by the Russians themselves.

Iran might actually the rare example of a successful sanctioning, and like Syria, they may apparently be about to become 'the good guys' in response to the rise of IS.

If I may offer a riposte, compare the treatment of these states with states engaging in similar activity to Israel - we have Turkey, which ethnically cleansed the Northern part of an EU member and now looks to be joining the EU itself, Morocco, which (and I'm not making this up) has built a 3,000 km long wall to hold onto its acquisitions in Western Sahara or Armenia, which holds a significant swath of Azerbaijan and removed the minority Azeri population from the area - none of whom inspire the ire of our populations, the attention of our media, nor the sanctions of our governments. Yet these are all conflicts with proceed along the exactly same principles as the Israeli-Palestinian one, namely illegal occupation and recurrent flare ups of violence, yet our doctrine has been one of ignorance and non-intervention - why?

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Here I've just watched this video

Maybe you might find this interesting and you could come back and comment.

I imagine he has made some fine points but it will take me some time to get through that, must add it to the 'to-do' pile

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 9:37pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Quite possible although not very original from the poster who is injecting 'freshness' into a 'stale' debate to make it less 'one sided'

suicide_circus wrote: »

In fairness this thread is full of whataboutery

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Are you indulging in a spot of whataboutery?

hju6 wrote: »

Is that some pathetic excuse for Israels actions, or is it 'monkey see, monkey do'

I'm not quite sure that it is either a vice or a mistake to bring up the fact that for analogous conflicts to the one in Palestine, the policy of our governments and the views of our population have been non-intervention and non-caring. Indeed this has been expounded for quite a while in our reluctance (quite reasonably) to get involved in foreign quagmires since the Iraq War. I feel that there is a genuine problem to be attended to, if the overarching principles of our engagement with other states randomly ignored in the case of Israel and would be very interested in understanding why that is the case.

Nodin · 19-08-2014 9:45pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Indonesia was never placed under international sanctions and continued to do a booming arms trade with the West during the entire period of its occupation, and I believe its eventual independence might owe a lot more to the downfall of Suharto than anything else - it should be noted the enormous territory of West Papua remains under Indonesian occupation without much ado.

Much ado that you're aware of. There was a campaign and "outrage" about East Timor, which was the point.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Sri Lanka is indeed under investigation and has in the interim continued an unfettered trade in arms with the UK despite that governments condemnation of Sri Lanka actions following the defeat of the Tamil Tigers (delivered ironically by Baroness Warsi).

It's under investigation however. Trying to add a "but" at the end rather underlines the fact you're gasping at straws.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Sudan is a case of too little too late, 300,000 are dead and I'm not sure what exactly the implication of those sanctions is supposed to be - are they supposed to stop the Sudanese from making sure they are really dead?

There was a campaign, there are sanctions. There are the things you were saying didn't apply to countries other than Israel in your post.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Syria seems to be quite similar to the above, they were placed under sanction yet the conflict still rages and now apparently, Assad is going to become our new lynchpin in face of the rise of the IS.

Are they under sanctions? Yes.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Russia seems like a reasonably clear case of invading another country and paying for it, although not only have these sanctions been a product of the EU and US rather than the international community, but the most serious, namely a ban on food imports from those two groups, has been instituted by the Russians themselves. .

Are they under sanctions? Yes.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Iran might actually the rare example of a successful sanctioning, and like Syria, they may apparently be about to become 'the good guys' in response to the rise of IS. .

Under sanctions are they? Yes.

........

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

.............. Yet these are all conflicts with proceed along the exactly same principles as the Israeli-Palestinian one, namely illegal occupation and recurrent flare ups of violence, yet our doctrine has been one of ignorance and non-intervention - why?

So having shown that your first post was baseless whataboutery, you now scramble to find more obscure conflicts to go "What about" once more.

Nodin · 19-08-2014 9:46pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm not quite sure that it is either a vice or a mistake to bring up the fact that for analogous conflicts to the one in Palestine, the policy of our governments and the views of our population have been non-intervention and non-caring. Indeed this has been expounded for quite a while in our reluctance (quite reasonably) to get involved in foreign quagmires since the Iraq War. I feel that there is a genuine problem to be attended to, if the overarching principles of our engagement with other states randomly ignored in the case of Israel and would be very interested in understanding why that is the case.

I'm fairly sure Ireland wasn't involved in the Iraq war.

bruschi · 19-08-2014 9:46pm

Love the headline on Rte news site.

Hamas pounds Israel with rockets.

Read the piece. Hamas fired 3 rockets into wasteland. After more guff on the cease fire ending they fill out the rest of the report. Later on, they report that Israel struck Gaza with air strikes killing a young girl and a woman.

But they lead with Hamas pounds Israel. With 3 rockets. Into wasteland.

Nice job Rte.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 9:48pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Perhaps because it speaks to our own history. Have a read of this and see how many differences you can spot between what happened during the plantations and what is happening in Palestine now.

Perhaps it does, yet even if it does, and its hard not to see quite a few parallels between the situation, it begs the question why we are only seeing the parallels with the Palestinians and not the myriad of other states undertaking genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Tuisceanch wrote: »

So your stance is that the motivation of the Israeli government was an act of self defense in accordance with the same narrative that was played out during 'Operation Cast Lead' and the previous operation. You do not consider the actions of the Israeli's in the west bank prior to the rocket firing as being an act of war nor do you consider that the illegal occupation itself is a perpetual act of war?

I imagine the actions in Gaza as being a response to the continued rocket fire upon Israel from the Gaza Strip uninterrupted for the past 8 years, brought to the fore by the abduction and killing of the three Israeli teens (falsely attributed to Hamas if I recall correctly). Now as for considering it an act of war, I am inclined toward the view that the two parties have been at war with each other since 1967, in a conflict of occupation and resistance. I would lay the blame for the failure to resolve this conflict not simply at the feet of Israel, but at the governments of Israel for failing to pursue the notion of a peace agreement with a free Palestine more zealously, and the representatives of Palestine for allowing them to get away with it, especially following tentative offers made by Israel in 2000 and 2008 under Barak and Olmert.

It is the actions that are more relevant,particularly to the people of Gaza rather than how you want to label the justifications for those actions. It would not be unfair to say that the responsibility for the actions of Israel lay at the door of the government who sanctioned it?

As above, I would indeed lay responsibility in part with the Israeli government, particularly for its incompetence and bloodiness in responding to rocket fire from Gaza, but then I would also lay blame at those firing the rockets in the first place. But above all, I believe the ability of the two groups to agree a peace agreement to reconcile the needs of both is the underlying cause of the recurrent conflict and loss of life.

Tuisceanch · 19-08-2014 9:49pm

Nodin wrote: »

I'm fairly sure Ireland wasn't involved in the Iraq war.

Actually we were. Two of our regiments,fresh from fighting in Afghanistan were the first to enter Baghdad. Ireland has a long history of colonial wars. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that fact. Revisionist history has blinded us to our reality.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 9:51pm

Nodin wrote: »

I'm fairly sure Ireland wasn't involved in the Iraq war.

Indeed it wasn't (well at-least not directly, say what you will about Shannon), I do hope I wasn't unclear about that in my post. I intended to underline the crystallization of opposition to military adventures abroad in the response of Irish society to the American invasion of Iraq, the protests, the outrage - as distinct from the more passive response to American intervention in Afghanistan.

I've not forgotten your sanction twice post btw I will get to it next, run off my feet here

hju6 · 19-08-2014 9:54pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Indeed it wasn't (well at-least not directly, say what you will about Shannon), I do hope I wasn't unclear about that in my post. I intended to underline the crystallization of opposition to military adventures abroad in the response of Irish society to the American invasion of Iraq, the protests, the outrage - as distinct from the more passive response to American intervention in Afghanistan.

I've not forgotten your sanction twice post btw I will get to it next, run off my feet here

Talking sh1te on a few forums are you?

Nodin · 19-08-2014 9:54pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Indeed it wasn't (well at-least not directly, say what you will about Shannon), I do hope I wasn't unclear about that in my post. I intended to underline the crystallization of opposition to military adventures abroad in the response of Irish society to the American invasion of Iraq, the protests, the outrage -

It was manifestly an unjustified war and was perceived by a majority here and abroad as such.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

as distinct from the more passive response to American intervention in Afghanistan.

...which was perceived by most as a response to the attack on the twin towers.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 10:03pm

Nodin wrote: »

Why would you call for a boycott when they're already under sanctions? whats next, campaign to see people hung twice?

Sanctions are not some kind of universal set of punitive measures such as say a naval blockade. Against Sudan for example, most of the agreed upon sanctions pertained to the sale of arms to certain militia groups WITHIN the country, the travel and asset freeze of several individuals in the government and that was it (incidentally a lot of these measures were originally far harsher but had been watered down by Sudan's major trade partner China on the security council). The US only began broader sanctions in 2009 and has done so without support from the United Nations.

Now lets contrast that with Israel, taking for example the EU, which has imposed sanctions upon the import of Israeli goods produced in the occupied territories - that doesn't mean that suddenly BDS has stopped calling for a total boycott of Israeli goods, that some academics have resumed cultural contacts with Israeli institutions or that George Galloway has called for an Israeli free Bradford - why not? Because in their view these sanctions do not go far enough and that more should be done. Maybe a case of seeing somebody hung first rather than just seeing them with a rope around their neck?

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 10:06pm

Nodin wrote: »

It was manifestly an unjustified war and was perceived by a majority here and abroad as such.

Well hurray, we have found something we agree on

hju6 wrote: »

Talking sh1te on a few forums are you?

If you take issue with any of my arguments I'm more than happy to hear your criticisms, is there anything particularly sh1tey to you?

Nodin · 19-08-2014 10:07pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Sanctions are not some kind of universal set of punitive measures such as say a naval blockade. Against Sudan for example, most of the agreed upon sanctions pertained to the sale of arms to certain militia groups WITHIN the country, the travel and asset freeze of several individuals in the government and that was it (incidentally a lot of these measures were originally far harsher but had been watered down by Sudan's major trade partner China on the security council). The US only began broader sanctions in 2009 and has done so without support from the United Nations.

....I'm well aware of what they are. It's still more than that imposed upon Israel.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Now lets contrast that with Israel, taking for example the EU, which has imposed sanctions upon the import of Israeli goods produced in the occupied territories -

That's because it doesn't sufficiently penalise Israel, or create the conditions to make settlement maintenance and expansion a massive burden. A cultural boycott helps ram the message home and should be maintained.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 10:08pm

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Actually we were. Two of our regiments,fresh from fighting in Afghanistan were the first to enter Baghdad. Ireland has a long history of colonial wars. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that fact. Revisionist history has blinded us to our reality.

Hehe, ironically I believe there was a regiment of the US army with an Irish background, the 69th (Fighting Irish or Fighting 69th) if I'm not mistaken, which spent much of its time in Baghdad

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 10:24pm

Nodin wrote: »

Much ado that you're aware of. There was a campaign and "outrage" about East Timor, which was the point.

Which is great but there were no sanctions and nor are there any sanctions for West Papua.

It's under investigation however. Trying to add a "but" at the end rather underlines the fact you're gasping at straws.

So we can put this what, on the maybe pile? On the 'do as you wish but once you've killed a bunch of people we MIGHT get angry' pile? When the investigation is done and sanctions are decided upon or avoided, we will see where we stand.

There was a campaign, there are sanctions. There are the things you were saying didn't apply to countries other than Israel in your post. Are they under sanctions? Yes. Are they under sanctions? Yes. Under sanctions are they? Yes.

To which I can only reply to Morocco, Turkey and Armenia, are they under sanctions? No, No, No, hence the difficulty in saying that there is a clear and unbiased response to actions such as this.

So having shown that your first post was baseless whataboutery, you now scramble to find more obscure conflicts to go "What about" once more.

You can't operate law on the principle that it will only be enforced upon people you don't like, now I'm not sure how you can regard Turkey and Morocco as obscure countries (Sorry Armenia) but do you not find it problematic if either popular opinion or international diplomacy or what have you is willing to concede a 'free pass' as it were, to some states but not others? Does it not fall upon us to enforce the same set of rules on all violators equally, rather than on whomever is convenient?

Nodin · 19-08-2014 10:27pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Which is great but there were no sanctions and nor are there any sanctions for West Papua.

"but what about". What's the relevance?

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

To which I can only reply to Morocco, Turkey and Armenia, are they under sanctions? No, No, No, hence the difficulty in saying that there is a clear and unbiased response to actions such as this. ?

Who said there was?

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

You can't operate law on the principle that it will only be enforced upon people you don't like, .......?

Yet that's currently the case.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 10:38pm

Nodin wrote: »

....I'm well aware of what they are. It's still more than that imposed upon Israel.That's because it doesn't sufficiently penalise Israel, or create the conditions to make settlement maintenance and expansion a massive burden. A cultural boycott helps ram the message home and should be maintained.

I thought I might take these two together because the deal with the same root issue, which is what the implications of the boycotts or sanctions or what have you should be which I where I think there are other problems.

What exactly is the purpose of these sanctions proposed towards Israel, when compared with say the sanctions on Iran (which had the fairly straightforward aim of no nukes)? If we take the BDS movement for example, with calls effectively for the withdrawal of Israel to its 67 borders and the concession to all Palestinian refugees, a right of return to Israel, compensation for lost property, citizenship etc.

Does no-one else here that it might not be the wisest of decisions or indeed the most practical of decisions, to send into Israel half a million Jewish settlers and 5 million Palestinian refugees? Or in other words, nearly doubling the population of a country already riven by high land prices and ethnic tensions? Does no-one see a problem in opening up a territory which usually manages to fire several rockets a day into Israel, to unrestricted and unmonitored trade with the wider world? Or the problem in potentially creating a new territory like this in the West Bank?

If I could make one criticism of popular outrage against Israel it would be this presumption that the conflict is simply between a moustachioed villain of a nation, wantonly inflicting death and destruction on the innocent for its own pleasure, and that this is a conflict with a simple and quick resolution in the form of Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. I think most of us here would realize that any peace deal signed by the two sides would be followed by further attacks on Israel with the added spectre of Israeli settler hard-liners making retaliatory strikes at Palestine. Surely, since we have given some time to ponder the conflict, it behoves us to try and understand the need for a more nuanced understanding of the conflict.

Nodin · 19-08-2014 10:41pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

What exactly is the purpose of these sanctions proposed towards Israel, when compared with say the sanctions on Iran (which had the fairly straightforward aim of no nukes)? If we take the BDS movement for example, with calls effectively for the withdrawal of Israel to its 67 borders and the concession to all Palestinian refugees, a right of return to Israel, compensation for lost property, citizenship etc. .

You're sure on that? Because Fatah dropped demands for the right of return in negotiations some time ago. What's needed is an end to expansion, the stopping of support for existing settlements and the opening of negotiations for a finalised border with a Palestinian state as the end goal.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 10:45pm

Nodin wrote: »

"but what about". What's the relevance? Who said there was?

The relevance is the failure of the international community to agree to a coherent policy of responses and interventions in the case of various states engaging in unacceptable activity. The result being that these calls for sanctions and intervention in certain instances and not others, reeks of an almost tribal mentality, grounded in an imagined affinity with certain groups and not other, which does not strike me as being a fair basis for any kind of response to international crises.

Yet that's currently the case.

I think we've found something else we might agree on.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 10:50pm

Nodin wrote: »

You're sure on that? Because Fatah dropped demands for the right of return in negotiations some time ago. What's needed is an end to expansion, the stopping of support for existing settlements and the opening of negotiations for a finalised border with a Palestinian state as the end goal.

To be fair I don't think Fatah was that keen on the idea of the Academic Boycott for that matter, but sadly I think it is too often the case that the cause of Palestine is hijacked in the West by extremists and nutjobs, which has the effect of undercutting the legitimacy of the Palestinians and arming Israeli hard-liners.

But then I would make that point about a lot of the protests over the past few weeks, which have peaked with acts of violent anti-Semitism, sectarianism and a few acts of neo-Nazism, which has in turn sent a shiver down the spine of various Jewish communities across Europe and indirectly strengthened the hand of the hard-line settler groups, who thrive upon the idea that Jews are at risk anywhere but in Israel, and as such Israel must expand into Palestine to survive.

Tuisceanch · 19-08-2014 10:59pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Surely, since we have given some time to ponder the conflict, it behoves us to try and understand the need for a more nuanced understanding of the conflict.

A nuanced understanding of the discussion necessarily means exploring the mainstream mantra that Israel is reacting to aggression whilst ignoring the conditions that exist for the people under the yoke of a vicious and illegal occupation and also to examine the claim that Israel is a willing partner for peace. Much evidence has being provided here quoting a myriad of sources that throw these two basic assertions into considerable dispute to the extent that any reasonable person would be inclined to advocate that Israel has fabricated a narrative which is eagerly bought by vested interests to justify a land grab and a monopolisation of natural resources at the expense of those people who have a more legitimate entitlement. Given the wealth of support for this viewpoint there is a natural tendency to suggest bias but if no substantive arguments based on factual evidence can be proffered to support the case for Israel,given the wealth of resources available to supporters of that view then what other conclusion can be drawn.

Nodin · 19-08-2014 11:01pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

To be fair I don't think Fatah was that keen on the idea of the Academic Boycott for that matter, but sadly I think it is too often the case that the cause of Palestine is hijacked in the West by extremists and nutjobs, which has the effect of undercutting the legitimacy of the Palestinians and arming Israeli hard-liners..

Or Abbas thinks that abandoning any form of real action will be rewarded, which seems far more likely.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The relevance is the failure of the international community to agree to a coherent policy of responses and interventions in the case of various states engaging in unacceptable activity. The result being that these calls for sanctions and intervention in certain instances and not others, reeks of an almost tribal mentality, grounded in an imagined affinity with certain groups and not other, which does not strike me as being a fair basis for any kind of response to international crises. ..

Ideally a submarine would sink whaling vessels, and be paid for by the international community. This not happening doesn't lessen the need to campaign against other wrongs in the world.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

But then I would make that point about a lot of the protests over the past few weeks, which have peaked with acts of violent anti-Semitism, sectarianism and a few acts of neo-Nazism, which has in turn sent a shiver down the spine of various Jewish communities across Europe and indirectly strengthened the hand of the hard-line settler groups, who thrive upon the idea that Jews are at risk anywhere but in Israel, and as such Israel must expand into Palestine to survive.

Tuisceanch · 19-08-2014 11:05pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

To be fair I don't think Fatah was that keen on the idea of the Academic Boycott for that matter, but sadly I think it is too often the case that the cause of Palestine is hijacked in the West by extremists and nutjobs, which has the effect of undercutting the legitimacy of the Palestinians and arming Israeli hard-liners.

But then I would make that point about a lot of the protests over the past few weeks, which have peaked with acts of violent anti-Semitism, sectarianism and a few acts of neo-Nazism, which has in turn sent a shiver down the spine of various Jewish communities across Europe and indirectly strengthened the hand of the hard-line settler groups, who thrive upon the idea that Jews are at risk anywhere but in Israel, and as such Israel must expand into Palestine to survive.

This is conveniently ignoring the fact that there have been large scale Jewish demonstrations against the actions of Israel and this is a standard argument used by Israeli proponents to justify their actions. As you began so you continue with unfounded labeling of people and the motivation for their opposition to the actions of Israel. Clearly you want to channel the argument and discussion into the nebulous rather than focusing on the reality of a barbaric attack on a largely defenseless population.

AngryHippie · 19-08-2014 11:07pm

Tuisceanch wrote: »

A nuanced understanding ........ what other conclusion can be drawn.

Thank you whoever you are. Better Summation of 107 pages of OMFG than has ever been written before.

Nodin · 19-08-2014 11:08pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

Thank you whoever you are. Better Summation of 107 pages of OMFG than has ever been written before.

I thought "bastards at it again" was fairly good meself.

AngryHippie · 19-08-2014 11:12pm

Nodin wrote: »

I thought "bastards at it again" was fairly good meself.

Yeah, but you couldn't insert it as a footnote to a UN report on war crimes, unlike Tusiceanach's succinct contribution, which sums up this farcical spiteful piece of history quite well.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 11:22pm

Tuisceanch wrote: »

A nuanced understanding of the discussion necessarily means exploring the mainstream mantra that Israel is reacting to aggression whilst ignoring the conditions that exist for the people under the yoke of a vicious and illegal occupation and also to examine the claim that Israel is a willing partner for peace. Much evidence has being provided here quoting a myriad of sources that throw these two basic assertions into considerable dispute to the extent that any reasonable person would be inclined to advocate that Israel has fabricated a narrative which is eagerly bought by vested interests to justify a land grab and a monopolisation of natural resources at the expense of those people who have a more legitimate entitlement. Given the wealth of support for this viewpoint there is a natural tendency to suggest bias but if no substantive arguments based on factual evidence can be proffered to support the case for Israel,given the wealth of resources available to supporters of that view then what other conclusion can be drawn.

Forgive me, but I don't think that is the mainstream mantra by any means, at-least on this side of the Atlantic, and much to the contrary, pro-Israeli demonstrations have been dwarfed by pro-Palestinian ones, as is I dare say, the balance of opinion on this site. And as I have made clear, I have very little time for Israeli reluctance to remain at the peace table, nor their continuing construction of settlements on Palestinian land (if you want something to blow your gasket over this, I dare you to watch 10 minutes of Dani Dayan

).

However, if you wished to challenge the narrative that Palestinian outrage at Israeli is grounded exclusively in their occupation of the West Bank, I do feel it necessary to recount the recent history of Gaza. You will recall that under the Premiership of Ariel Sharon, in 2005-6 Israeli withdrew unilaterally, its settlers and troops from the Gaza strip whilst retaining control of borders and airspace. This withdrawal, which in my view should have been the first free province of a free Palestine, was followed within minutes of Israeli withdrawal, by rocket fire into Israel proper. No blockade of the area existed at this point and would not exist despite the following months of rocket fire into Israel, only with the election of Hamas (and their subsequent seizure of control) in 2006 did the blockade come into existence, and sadly, proved the only effective means of reducing rocket attacks on Israel. Now faced with these circumstances, how difficult do you imagine it is, to sell the idea of a free West Bank to an Israeli public, today this very minute, under artillery fire from Gaza? As much as I would like to undercut Israeli land grabs in the West Bank, the rendering of a free Palestine as such a sour idea by actions past, has made the prospect of a lasting peace in the region further away, not closer.

NotASheeple · 19-08-2014 11:22pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Forgive me sir

Sir? And you assume I am a 'Sir' how?

Irish Praetrian wrote: »

but have I given you the impression that I look upon the events in Gaza and the deaths of so many civilians with anything but the kind of disdain and disappointment that many others here have expressed? I think such actions can be termed most politely as unwise for the Israeli state and more forcefully as a bloody and wilfully destructive campaign of retribution to rocket attacks on Israel.

Despite the obvious and perhaps even desperate attempt there to conceal. Your IDF apologists leanings are pretty apparent.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Nonetheless I am uncertain that you can lay the blame for the actions in Gaza simply at the door of 'Zionism', which I always found to be a spectacularly nebulous catch-all

Uncertain? Then it is obvious you will need to educate yourself and get some research under your belt. Hopefully you will then enlighten yourself accordingly and see there is nothing 'nebulous' about it at all.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

What is there in the idea that there should be an Israeli state which inherently demands the slaughter of others, that there is not in the idea that there should be an Irish state?

If you're are trying to compare the creation of the Irish State to the Israeli State. Not only is such a comparison ludicrous and all hope possible lost. But my time wasting alarm has just perforated my ear drums

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

If I might take the opportunity actually, could I ask you what exactly 'Zionism' is?

Amazing how you can write the thread off as being one sided and then you can ask that question. You seemed to have missed the obvious. The obvious being, the numerous posts and posters who have discussed, elaborated upon and explained Zionism and all its toxicity in very helpful detail. I find it strange you can enter the thread; proclaim it as being one sided. Yet it is pretty evident, that you haven’t bothered your backside in reading through it. Otherwise you wouldn’t be wasting time in asking, unless that’s the point.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

And just to take up your point on the thread title, you are indeed correct as to what it is called, however I've noticed that such threads tend to be more numerous, and consist of more posts, than threads detailing what we might term analagous events - let us say for example, a Nagorno-Karabakh thread

More irrelevance, deflection and derailment from the thread topic. Yes all such strategies are pointless. Perhaps you should join us in sticking to the subject.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 11:26pm

Tuisceanch wrote: »

This is conveniently ignoring the fact that there have been large scale Jewish demonstrations against the actions of Israel and this is a standard argument used by Israeli proponents to justify their actions. As you began so you continue with unfounded labeling of people and the motivation for their opposition to the actions of Israel. Clearly you want to channel the argument and discussion into the nebulous rather than focusing on the reality of a barbaric attack on a largely defenseless population.

With respect, do you imagine the idea that some Israelis are protesting the violence in Gaza makes anti-Semitic attacks on European Jews, their property and places of worship any more tolerable? I would not label someone who protests for a Free Gaza as an anti-Semite any more than I would label someone chanting for a free Ukraine a Neo-Nazi, however the reality that such elements have permeated the movement is a significant problem and a leading cause in the rise of anti-Semitic attacks across Europe in recent weeks. It is the actions of these fringes (I emphasize fringes) and their ability to operate more freely recently, which had fuelled the Israeli hard-liners and left the prospect of a Free Palestine even further out of reach.

Nodin · 19-08-2014 11:30pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

....................

However, if you wished to challenge the narrative that Palestinian outrage at Israeli is grounded exclusively in their occupation of the West Bank, I do feel it necessary to recount the recent history of Gaza. You will recall that under the Premiership of Ariel Sharon, in 2005-6 Israeli withdrew unilaterally, its settlers and troops from the Gaza strip whilst retaining control of borders and airspace. This withdrawal, which in my view should have been the first free province of a free Palestine, was followed within minutes of Israeli withdrawal, by rocket fire into Israel proper. No blockade of the area existed at this point and would not exist despite the following months of rocket fire into Israel, only with the election of Hamas (and their subsequent seizure of control) in 2006 did the blockade come into existence, and sadly, proved the only effective means of reducing rocket attacks on Israel. Now faced with these circumstances, how difficult do you imagine it is, to sell the idea of a free West Bank to an Israeli public, today this very minute, under artillery fire from Gaza? As much as I would like to undercut Israeli land grabs in the West Bank, the rendering of a free Palestine as such a sour idea by actions past, has made the prospect of a lasting peace in the region further away, not closer.

It wasn't done as a charitable act. Firstly, the settlers were moved to the West Bank and troops redeployed there. Also -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

Israel still controlled Gazan resources, borders, airspace, and coastal waters.

Tuisceanch · 19-08-2014 11:35pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Forgive me, but I don't think that is the mainstream mantra by any means, at-least on this side of the Atlantic, and much to the contrary, pro-Israeli demonstrations have been dwarfed by pro-Palestinian ones, as is I dare say, the balance of opinion on this site. And as I have made clear, I have very little time for Israeli reluctance to remain at the peace table, nor their continuing construction of settlements on Palestinian land (if you want something to blow your gasket over this, I dare you to watch 10 minutes of Dani Dayan ).

However, if you wished to challenge the narrative that Palestinian outrage at Israeli is grounded exclusively in their occupation of the West Bank, I do feel it necessary to recount the recent history of Gaza. You will recall that under the Premiership of Ariel Sharon, in 2005-6 Israeli withdrew unilaterally, its settlers and troops from the Gaza strip whilst retaining control of borders and airspace. This withdrawal, which in my view should have been the first free province of a free Palestine, was followed within minutes of Israeli withdrawal, by rocket fire into Israel proper. No blockade of the area existed at this point and would not exist despite the following months of rocket fire into Israel, only with the election of Hamas (and their subsequent seizure of control) in 2006 did the blockade come into existence, and sadly, proved the only effective means of reducing rocket attacks on Israel. Now faced with these circumstances, how difficult do you imagine it is, to sell the idea of a free West Bank to an Israeli public, today this very minute, under artillery fire from Gaza? As much as I would like to undercut Israeli land grabs in the West Bank, the rendering of a free Palestine as such a sour idea by actions past, has made the prospect of a lasting peace in the region further away, not closer.

I'm sorry but where exactly did those Israeli settlers in Gaza end up? Also you continually suggest that Hamas fired rockets and that Israel reacted. Were there no actions of Israel that proceeded those attacks? Also the idea that because groups of individuals have opted out of automatically accepting the mainstream medias version of events does not equate to a wider societal viewpoint that the mainstream viewpoint is biased. If you contend that the mainstream viewpoint has being lopsided in favour of the Palestinian cause then why is the context of the recent peace talks,the actions of the Israelis in the West Bank after the abduction of 3 Jewish kids and the issue of the substantial gas resources not being provided to give some better context.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 11:35pm

Nodin wrote: »

Ideally a submarine would sink whaling vessels, and be paid for by the international community. This not happening doesn't lessen the need to campaign against other wrongs in the world.

The problem with this line of argument is that the kind of campaigning we have seen on this issue, by groups like BDS or STW, is not only ill-informed but counter-productive. To look at the actions in Gaza and express outrage is human, to then conclude that what's needed is the endorsement of political campaigns to relocate a few million people and to override the security concerns of another country is absurd and produces little more than a backlash and no substantial change.

Little CuChulainn · 19-08-2014 11:36pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

With respect, do you imagine the idea that some Israelis are protesting the violence in Gaza makes anti-Semitic attacks on European Jews, their property and places of worship any more tolerable? I would not label someone who protests for a Free Gaza as an anti-Semite any more than I would label someone chanting for a free Ukraine a Neo-Nazi, however the reality that such elements have permeated the movement is a significant problem and a leading cause in the rise of anti-Semitic attacks across Europe in recent weeks. It is the actions of these fringes (I emphasize fringes) and their ability to operate more freely recently, which had fuelled the Israeli hard-liners and left the prospect of a Free Palestine even further out of reach.

I think it's more likely the rise of antisemitism is a result of Israels war crimes committed in the name of Jews everywhere, at least according to them.

Nodin · 19-08-2014 11:36pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The problem with this line of argument is that the kind of campaigning we have seen on this issue, by groups like BDS or STW, is not only ill-informed but counter-productive. To look at the actions in Gaza and express outrage is human, to then conclude that what's needed is the endorsement of political campaigns to relocate a few million people and to override the security concerns of another country is absurd and produces little more than a backlash and no substantial change.

The security concerns are a cover for aggressive suppression and colonial expansion lets face it.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 11:40pm

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I'm sorry but where exactly did those Israeli settlers in Gaza end up? Also you continually suggest that Hamas fired rockets and that Israel reacted. Were there no actions of Israel that proceeded those attacks? Also the idea that because groups of individuals have opted out of automatically accepting the mainstream medias version of events does not equate to a wider societal viewpoint that the mainstream viewpoint is biased. If you contend that the mainstream viewpoint has being lopsided in favour of the Palestinian cause then why is the context of the recent peace talks,the actions of the Israelis in the West Bank after the abduction of 3 Jewish kids and the issue of the substantial gas resources not being provided to give some better context.

Nodin wrote: »

It wasn't done as a charitable act. Firstly, the settlers were moved to the West Bank and troops redeployed there. Also -

Israel still controlled Gazan resources, borders, airspace, and coastal waters.

Indeed they were moved to the West Bank, so surely the people most aggrieved by their arrival would be in the West Bank getting their land stolen, not in Gaza? I don't pretend it to be a perfect solution, but surely the idea of a free Palestine was a damn sight closer when Israel could look at a functioning and peaceful Gaza to its South, rather than one which was continually employed as a rocket launch site? Now if you think that there were some specific and continual Israeli actions from 2005-6 in Gaza which somehow demanded response in the form of ineffectual rocket attacks against Israeli population centres then I'm by all means happy to hear them, but quite frankly I think the purpose of these attacks is more suited to those Israelis who believe there can be no peace with the Palestinians, than Palestinians of any stripe.

Tuisceanch · 19-08-2014 11:42pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

With respect, do you imagine the idea that some Israelis are protesting the violence in Gaza makes anti-Semitic attacks on European Jews, their property and places of worship any more tolerable? I would not label someone who protests for a Free Gaza as an anti-Semite any more than I would label someone chanting for a free Ukraine a Neo-Nazi, however the reality that such elements have permeated the movement is a significant problem and a leading cause in the rise of anti-Semitic attacks across Europe in recent weeks. It is the actions of these fringes (I emphasize fringes) and their ability to operate more freely recently, which had fuelled the Israeli hard-liners and left the prospect of a Free Palestine even further out of reach.

I don't equate the two and nor should you. The more relevant point is why are significant Jewish groups in the US and UK under their own banner protesting at the actions of a government which they say are besmirching the names of Jews across the globe? It is surely also plainly obvious that of all the obstacles to peace the least significant is the one you just mentioned.

Irish Praetorian · 19-08-2014 11:49pm

NotASheeple wrote: »

Sir? And you assume I am a 'Sir' how?

Is there a respectful form of address you would prefer?

Despite the obvious and perhaps even desperate attempt there to conceal. Your IDF apologists leanings are pretty apparent.

Do you believe it impossible to reconcile the notion that one can detest loss of life without descending to unadulterated anti-Israeli sentiment?

Uncertain? Then it is obvious you will need to educate yourself and get some research under your belt. Hopefully you will then enlighten yourself accordingly and see there is nothing 'nebulous' about it at all.

If you think there is some specific piece of knowledge or education that I am missing then I am happy to hear it.

If you're are trying to compare the creation of the Irish State to the Israeli State. Not only is such a comparison ludicrous and all hope possible lost. But my time wasting alarm has just perforated my ear drums

They give me a little bit of pain now and again but I find a bit of cotton wool and a dab of oil wadded in usually does some good.

Amazing how you can write the thread off as being one sided and then you can ask that question. You seemed to have missed the obvious. The obvious being, the numerous posts and posters who have discussed, elaborated upon and explained Zionism and all its toxicity in very helpful detail. I find it strange you can enter the thread; proclaim it as being one sided. Yet it is pretty evident, that you haven’t bothered your backside in reading through it. Otherwise you wouldn’t be wasting time in asking, unless that’s the point.

Do you imagine, given my preceding sentence regarding the creation of an Israeli state, that I am not aware of what Zionism in the historical sense might be categorized as? I ask the question genuinely, as I have found people offer contradictory definitions, some might argue the creation of settlements in Palestine is an act of Zionism, others that merely supporting the existence of the state of Israeli is Zionism - your own definition appears to include some element of toxicity - perhaps you might expand?

More irrelevance, deflection and derailment from the thread topic. Yes all such strategies are pointless. Perhaps you should join us in sticking to the subject.

Yes I think we have been.

Tuisceanch · 19-08-2014 11:52pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Indeed they were moved to the West Bank, so surely the people most aggrieved by their arrival would be in the West Bank getting their land stolen, not in Gaza? I don't pretend it to be a perfect solution, but surely the idea of a free Palestine was a damn sight closer when Israel could look at a functioning and peaceful Gaza to its South, rather than one which was continually employed as a rocket launch site? Now if you think that there were some specific and continual Israeli actions from 2005-6 in Gaza which somehow demanded response in the form of ineffectual rocket attacks against Israeli population centres then I'm by all means happy to hear them, but quite frankly I think the purpose of these attacks is more suited to those Israelis who believe there can be no peace with the Palestinians, than Palestinians of any stripe.

What exactly do you envision as an independent Palestinian state if the transferal of a group of settlers from one part of a nominal Palestinian state to another part does not constitute an illegal act and another barrier to peace. You are very glib when it comes to discussing these matters as it surely cannot have escaped your notice that the removal of settlers from Gaza cannot only be construed as a humanitarian action and an indication of the sincerity of Israel to enact a peaceful settlement but also as a pragmatic one given the cost of maintaining their security in Gaza. Their subsequent arrival in the West Bank might be perceived as giving more weight to the latter view point.

AngryHippie · 19-08-2014 11:57pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I don't pretend it to be a perfect solution, but surely the idea of a free Palestine was a damn sight closer when Israel could look at a functioning and peaceful Gaza to its South, rather than one which was continually employed as a rocket launch site? Now if you think that there were some specific and continual Israeli actions from 2005-6 in Gaza which somehow demanded response in the form of ineffectual rocket attacks against Israeli population centres then I'm by all means happy to hear them, but quite frankly I think the purpose of these attacks is more suited to those Israelis who believe there can be no peace with the Palestinians, than Palestinians of any stripe.

Are you suggesting that it serves the Zionist hawks in the Israeli government better to keep the people of Gaza so poor and desperate and powerless that they are unable to provide for the security of their own community and thus facilitate rocket attacks on southern Israel from within their territory ?
So they must secure their own territory, with sticks and stones ? They've been blockaded for years now, and any weaponry available for security measures to prevent the attacks on Israel end up being commandeered for that purpose, so they have been deliberately and in an extremely cynical and premeditated way been squeezed into the corner they are currently in by the Zionist strategists over the course of 5 or so decades now, and their only way out that Israel will agree to is to roll over and hand over responsibility for their territory to Israel, whose track record is to take their pick of the strategic resources, and further squeeze these people until they eventually cease to exist as a distinct ethnic group with an identity and right to self governance.
You can shill and apologize for Israel all you like, at some stage they will have to pay for their actions, in the near future they will cross the line, and go too far. At present the arab nations are preoccupied with their own security and future with current events, but as soon as their situation changes, Israel will be facing another 1967 situation because it will never be enough.

I can't see any way in which they can build a future without reconciling their issues with the Palestinians, as they will never have internal or external security until they have a level of communication and co-operation with them.

Irish Praetorian · 20-08-2014 12:00am

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think it's more likely the rise of antisemitism is a result of Israels war crimes committed in the name of Jews everywhere, at least according to them.

But surely regardless of the cause you see it as a problem?

Nodin wrote: »

The security concerns are a cover for aggressive suppression and colonial expansion lets face it.

When I first came to the subject that was my inclination as well, but increasingly I've found it to be a problematic assumption - for one, it runs contrary to Israeli dealings with Egypt, which handed back an enormous chunk of territory in the form of the Sinai, in exchange for a peace co-existence. Secondly, it appears predicated upon the assumption that the only value to be had in the region is based upon the control of land - whereas, a successful peace agreement would provide Israel, not only access to a vast new number of international markets currently off limits to them, but the ability to develop Israel proper in a manner that the risk rocket and other attack currently prohibits.

My own speculation is that the settler enterprise is Israel's way of recouping its expenditure of what might me termed 'blood and treasure' within the West Bank, by acting as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Palestinians (Oh you want East Jerusalem AND the settlements) and by providing a physical form of pressure to exert on the Palestinians through their displacement. In the event that the West Bank becomes a permanent part of Israel, I imagine the settlements would be employed to further reduce the living standards of the Palestinians and encourage their emigration.

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I don't equate the two and nor should you. The more relevant point is why are significant Jewish groups in the US and UK under their own banner protesting at the actions of a government which they say are besmirching the names of Jews across the globe? It is surely also plainly obvious that of all the obstacles to peace the least significant is the one you just mentioned.

Well I don't see what exactly would be stopping a Jew from turning on the television, seeing the appalling destruction in Gaza and being angry about it any less than anyone else. I do feel however, the role of rising anti-Semitism is being understated here, at a very simple level, its rise mean more Jews proceeding to Israel, which only fuels the settler movement - this is the LAST thing we should be encouraging.

Nodin · 20-08-2014 12:05am

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

When I first came to the subject that was my inclination as well, but increasingly I've found it to be a problematic assumption - for one, it runs contrary to Israeli dealings with Egypt, which handed back an enormous chunk of territory in the form of the Sinai, in exchange for a peace co-existence. ..........

They gave back the Sinai because they hadn't the numbers to hold it, and wanted to avoid being dragged into a war of attrition. Moshe Dayan was less than pleased, I recall reading.

Irish Praetorian · 20-08-2014 12:05am

Tuisceanch wrote: »

What exactly do you envision as an independent Palestinian state if the transferal of a group of settlers from one part of a nominal Palestinian state to another part does not constitute an illegal act and another barrier to peace. You are very glib when it comes to discussing these matters as it surely cannot have escaped your notice that the removal of settlers from Gaza cannot only be construed as a humanitarian action and an indication of the sincerity of Israel to enact a peaceful settlement but also as a pragmatic one given the cost of maintaining their security in Gaza. Their subsequent arrival in the West Bank might be perceived as giving more weight to the latter view point.

I imagine that the transfer of settlers out of Gaza and into the West Bank, with the intention of demonstration the possibility of peaceful co-existence with a Palestinian state beginning in Gaza, is the very prelude of the movement of most of those settlers from the West Bank back to Israel proper. It is the ability of a Palestinian state to exist peacefully side by side with an Israeli state which will provide Israel with the wherewithal to accept those settlers currently occupying Palestinian land. To put it another way, Israeli occupation of Palestine is justified in part by the perceived need for 'security' and the maintenance of that security infrastructure. The removal of the need for that security, demonstrated by the existence of a peaceful unoccupied Gaza, undercuts any need or justification for settlement within the West Bank.

Israel - Palestine Conflict. **Mod note in OP - updated 1st August**

Comments

Israel - Palestine Conflict. Mod note in OP - updated 1st August