Solidarity with Israelis

DeltaB

I'll just preface this by stressing that I am not a Hamas supporter, nor am I in any way sympathetic to Islamic extremism, and I presume I'm on the same page as everyone else on this forum on that regard. However having read this thread and other threads of a similar nature, I'm pretty surprised by what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Hamas. The call for "the destruction of Israel" which seems to be considered by people here as their only policy on Israel, is a quote from their charter, which is actually considered obsolete at this point by the vast majority of Hamas.

On numerous occasions they've stated their commitment to a long-term truce based on 1967 borders and on the condition of the right of return for displaced refugees (demands which incidentally, are consistent with various UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, but which are cast further and further from reality by Israeli colonisation of the West Bank). While it is highly unlikely that Israel would accede to these conditions, they could have at least provided some sort of basis for negotiations when Hamas were elected in 2006. Instead the brutal siege was imposed which only strengthens hardliners and is therefore not in Israel's own interest.

The organisation is not just "a group of terrorist thugs" as someone on this thread has stated. 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities (see here http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/). It obviously does have a military wing as well but the entire organisation - including the social services provisions - is labelled a terrorist organisation and is therefore internationally isolated and subject to sanctions.

I would consider myself anti-Zionist and I don't feel a need to apologise for that stance as Zionism is a racist, colonial ideology which has been put into practise in the form of a brutally oppressive apartheid system. Having said that, I do think that the Palestinian leadership should be subject to criticism and scrutiny as well, but it should be based on their current positions and policies, not worn out propaganda.

dvpower

Het-Field wrote: »

Thats nonsense. "Wont somebody please think of the children". That argument has got in the way of proper debate on this matter. And I will have you know that Israeli kids suffer under this conflict also.

I am not calling them terrorists, im just making the point that they elect those who support, and in some cases carry out that type of thing.

I would also point out that not all Israeli's are islam hating assholes.

You suggested that both Hamas and Fatah are terrorist organisations and that people who vote for them are terrorist sympathisers. Since this comprises almost every voter in Palestine, I'm just wondering if you consider that there is somthing intrinsic about the Palistinian people that leads them to support terrorism and if this is genetic or a learned behaviour?

Memnoch

Het-Field wrote: »

Thats nonsense. "Wont somebody please think of the children". That argument has got in the way of proper debate on this matter. And I will have you know that Israeli kids suffer under this conflict also.

I am not calling them terrorists, im just making the point that they elect those who support, and in some cases carry out that type of thing.

I would also point out that not all Israeli's are islam hating assholes.

All right...



Taking a look at that image, maybe it's understandable that the palestinian people got tired of being shat on by Israel for the last 50 years and in their desperation turned to someone who promised to fight for them.

But the truth is that, all that, Hamas, elected or not, terrorists or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the matter at hand... because as I've gotten TIRED of pointing out.

Israel CANNOT inflict collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza. It is specifically forbidden in the fourth geneva convention on Human rights. Just like, whatever crimes you may feel US governments past or present may or may not have committed, the attacks on the Twin Towers by Al-Queda killing civilians was completely unjustifiable. JUST LIKE the actions of Hamas themselves, firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas are completely unjustifiable.

A Dub in Glasgo

Denerick wrote: »

Far too many people are eager to condemn Israel, no matter what they do. Our ivory tower affords a beautiful moral clarity - try living in a country where you face the prospect of getting killed at any time, either from rocket attack or a sucide bomber. Try being a politician or diplomat for a country whose nearest neighbour (Palestine) refuses to recognise your right to exist, who adopt the most inhumane and fundamentalist approach to the treatment of their own people, whose sheer brutality would sicken the stomach of the most self righteous left wing college student.

Israel often over-reacts or kills the wrong people. But moral superiority is a fantasy when you live in an entity under the constant risk of attack by an enemy so ferocious and intransigent to make a mockery of the very word 'diplomacy'.

I am not an Israeli apologist. Neither am I in solidarity with the Palestinians. All I do is recognise the stupidity of hairy students lecturing a nation of people under siege at every opportunity, while not even affording the Palestinian leaders even a hint of criticism.

Swap Palestine for Israel and you have the other side of the equation.

Jaap

I am on the side of Israel all the way!
Was over in Edinburgh at the weekend when their was a pro-Palestinian rally being held yesterday...I was absolutely shocked by how many children there was there waving palestinian flags...shouldn't they not be playing football in a park on a sunny day rather than attend a gathering where people are chanting and there is a very big police presence!!!
Added to that...saw quite a few homeless people on the streets in Edinburgh...there are bigger problems far closer to home which maybe we should focus on!!! It is not only the innocent in Palestine that are starving...many people in the UK and Ireland need aid!!!
Maybe some of these pro-palestinian people can put a bit of effort in to helping the needy in Ireland in between organising rallies???

think about it ... the whole idea of a "jewish state" is sectarian in nature.
A big no no in my book and being backed up by the multi denominational, so called land of the free where once everyone was welcome US of A is a damn shame

In saying that the Palestinians didnt do themselves any favours voting in Hamas with their randomly aimed rocket attacks things are never pure black and pure white

Pride Fighter

dlofnep wrote: »

I have empathy for the average Israeli. I think everybody should watch Hashmatsa by Israeli documentary maker -Yoav Shamir. While it addresses the abuse of the anti-semitic card, you get to see the Israeli mindset a little clearer. It will make you empathise more with the average Israeli for sure.

But yes, I do feel sorry for the Israeli people. But their Government is doing everything it possibly can to hurt them. They are taught at a very young age to fear the world, and that the world is against them. They grow up feeling as victims, and as such - cannot fathom that anyone who attacks their country could be a victim.

It's a very complex issue - and it's obviously very hard to get to the root of, because most people (myself included at times) are emotionally driven - resulting in reactionary politics.

I'd agree with this standpoint. I have not posted much on this forum due to the anger I have over the whole issue.

What I will say is that the basic human rights of the Palestinians are being denied. Israel has all the aces at the moment. What has to happen is that a Palestinian state comes into existence, and that will not happen without Israel's consent.

Pride Fighter

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I'd agree with this standpoint. I have not posted much on this forum due to the anger I have over the whole issue.

What I will say is that the basic human rights of the Palestinians are being denied. Israel has all the aces at the moment. What has to happen is that a Palestinian state comes into existence, and that will not happen without Israel's consent.

why divide the land into Israeli and Palestinians? surely division will only prolong all of this. It will only end in my opinion when people can live side by side. One country for both peoples?

I can understand why Israel is so hard line but I couldnt show solidarity with them because I dont agree with their methods.
A friend of mine was in Ashkaelon and rockets landed all around the city, totally indiscriminate, fired from Gaza. He heard the helicopters flying out towards the strip - he said that all he wanted was those rockets to stop. I`d imagine the average israeli is fairly hardened and thats why they dont care for international opinion so much. They have a seige mentality. Ironic that they then put the Palestinians under seige, they came from a history of oppression and yet oppress.

Denerick

Deleted User wrote: »

why divide the land into Israeli and Palestinians? surely division will only prolong all of this. It will only end in my opinion when people can live side by side. One country for both peoples?

Oh yeah, as if that will work.

Pride Fighter

Deleted User wrote: »

why divide the land into Israeli and Palestinians? surely division will only prolong all of this. It will only end in my opinion when people can live side by side. One country for both peoples?

It is the democratic will of the Palestinian people to have a separate state. I'm sure Israel would not like 2.4 million Palestinians in their state, voting for parties that are not Kadima/Likud. With the Knesset in its current guise, imagine Hamas having the balance of power. I dont think Israel would want that.

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

Oh yeah, as if that will work.

Done gradually it would. Otherwise this will continue on and on. Its not like things have improved for either side since 1967

BlaasForRafa

DeltaB wrote: »

I'll just preface this by stressing that I am not a Hamas supporter, nor am I in any way sympathetic to Islamic extremism, and I presume I'm on the same page as everyone else on this forum on that regard. However having read this thread and other threads of a similar nature, I'm pretty surprised by what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Hamas. The call for "the destruction of Israel" which seems to be considered by people here as their only policy on Israel, is a quote from their charter, which is actually considered obsolete at this point by the vast majority of Hamas.

On numerous occasions they've stated their commitment to a long-term truce based on 1967 borders and on the condition of the right of return for displaced refugees (demands which incidentally, are consistent with various UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, but which are cast further and further from reality by Israeli colonisation of the West Bank). While it is highly unlikely that Israel would accede to these conditions, they could have at least provided some sort of basis for negotiations when Hamas were elected in 2006. Instead the brutal siege was imposed which only strengthens hardliners and is therefore not in Israel's own interest.

The organisation is not just "a group of terrorist thugs" as someone on this thread has stated. 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities (see here http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/). It obviously does have a military wing as well but the entire organisation - including the social services provisions - is labelled a terrorist organisation and is therefore internationally isolated and subject to sanctions.

I would consider myself anti-Zionist and I don't feel a need to apologise for that stance as Zionism is a racist, colonial ideology which has been put into practise in the form of a brutally oppressive apartheid system. Having said that, I do think that the Palestinian leadership should be subject to criticism and scrutiny as well, but it should be based on their current positions and policies, not worn out propaganda.

Even though I disagree with a lot of it I think this is probably the best post on this forum in ages for its considered approach.

There tends to be assumptions by those who would consider themselves in the pro-Palestinian camp as well. For example that all Israelis support the government or that all Israelis are zionists and in favour of settlements, thats just not the case, there is a whole range of opinion among Israelis just as their is amongst pro-Israel posters.

I would consider myself to be pro-Israeli but not pro-Zionist and against settlements.

There should be a two state solution based on the 1967 borders (excluding the Golan) but I think the "right to return" should be dropped in exchange for a dismantling of the settlements. I just don't think a right to return would work at this stage, we don't see the poles or russians giving germans a right to return to Danzig or Konigsberg.

The fact that Hamas engage in social work is something that is typical of a lot of terrorist organisations, the IRA did it both in the south and north but that could be considered as buying support by some. I think needs to be an honest ceasefire offer by Hamas (which the 10 year truce offer didn't seem to be) and a commitment not to rearm with heavy rockets in order for a lifting of the blockade to proceed and hopefully in the future a dismantling of settlements.

Deep Easterly

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The fact that Hamas engage in social work is something that is typical of a lot of terrorist organisations, the IRA did it both in the south and north but that could be considered as buying support by some.

Like who?

Denerick

Deleted User wrote: »

Done gradually it would. Otherwise this will continue on and on. Its not like things have improved for either side since 1967

A unified Israel/Palestine State is as likely as the Republic of Ireland rejoining the British Commonwealth.

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

Do you feel the same applies to the British and US ? They flagrantly disreagard international law with the campaign in Iraq, yet we are not falling over ourselves to endorse the Iraqi system, or call for boycotts of American goods.

I'm sorry but that pretty much has nothing to do with this discussion. As it stands, I did march against the invasion of Iraq. But this is a classic ruse to try and derail the discussion. Stick to the topic at hand.

Het-Field wrote: »

Yesterday I saw a young girl returning from a protest march carrying a flag with the sign of peace on it, while having her face covered in the colours of the Palestinian flag. It was a sheer act of hypocracy on her part.

Why? You can't be pro-Palestinian and pro-peace?

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Ironic that they then put the Palestinians under seige, they came from a history of oppression and yet oppress.

Kinda like the way the Irish - so long forced to pay extortionate rents by foreign landlords - bought up property obsessively and rented it out to foreigners at extortionate rents.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme choise

Eliot Rosewater

taconnol wrote: »

Why? You can't be pro-Palestinian and pro-peace?

Not really. Being "pro-Palestine" means, fundamentally, that you have taken a side. It's no black and white conflict, and the peaceful solution to it will involve both sides making sacrifices. Just because Israel have been worse than Hamas doesn't change that fact. The conflict cannot be simplified into an "us vs them" scenario.

If someone was truly pro-peace they would be out protesting when Hamas lobbed rockets into Israel, but I never see that. There's also a general trend amongst pro-Palestine people of ignoring any kind of rationale for Israel's actions. If I was living in fear of a rocket being fired into my child's school, I wouldn't be rolling over.

Being pro-peace means accepting these facts, and actively campaigning against Hamas too. As I said, I just never see that.

dvpower

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Not really. Being "pro-Palestine" means, fundamentally, that you have taken a side. It's no black and white conflict, and the peaceful solution to it will involve both sides making sacrifices. Just because Israel have been worse than Hamas doesn't change that fact. The conflict cannot be simplified into an "us vs them" scenario.

If someone was truly pro-peace they would be out protesting when Hamas lobbed rockets into Israel, but I never see that. There's also a general trend amongst pro-Palestine people of ignoring any kind of rationale for Israel's actions. If I was living in fear of a rocket being fired into my child's school, I wouldn't be rolling over.

Being pro-peace means accepting these facts, and actively campaigning against Hamas too. As I said, I just never see that.

Strange. Can one be pro Israel and also be pro peace?
Can't one be both pro Israel and pro Palestine?
How about pro Israel but against the policies of the current Israeli administration?

duridian

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There's also a general trend amongst pro-Palestine people of ignoring any kind of rationale for Israel's actions. If I was living in fear of a rocket being fired into my child's school, I wouldn't be rolling over.

Interesting that you phrase it that way, given this incident which happened in Gaza some while back.
I am not trying to bash what you are saying, just trying to show this idea can fit for either side.

Memnoch

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Being pro-peace means accepting these facts, and actively campaigning against Hamas too. As I said, I just never see that.

Hamas are not able to act with impunity and subjugate an entire nation of 1.5+ million people. So while Hamas are deplorable, they are, more or less, held to account for their actions. (for example, their leaders can be assassinated in international jurisdictions, the same can hardly be said for Israeli leaders)

Israel on the other hand can and DO act with impunity. And I would submit that this is the main driver behind the outcry. The lack of accountability combined with casual brutality.

So there isn't a need to protest against Hamas since action will be taken anyway to stop them. However, no action is ever taken against the Israeli government or the IDF despite atrocity after atrocity and the purpose of the protest is to bring justice where it is otherwise lacking.

I don't think it's fair to compare the two at all. (i.e. why there aren't as many protests against Hamas as against Israel)

Edit: I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government are quite comparable, the official treatment they receive are not. And that's really what the protests are about. If Israel's actions are comparable to that of a terrorist group, then they should be regarded as such by other states OR act more responsibily.

Sand

I feel sympathy for the civillians on both sides.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have a territorial, and by some perceptions an existensial, dispute to solve and they're using violence - why not? Its solved 99% of mankinds problems quite successfully so far. In as far as it goes, I dont have any strong feelings either way - Side A wins, or Side B wins. Military conflict is inescapable.

But as Orwell said, one side is always more progressive than the other. As such, Id definitely have more sympathy for the Israelis than I would have for Hamas. Hamas have deliberately targeted civillians, not on some ad-hoc basis, or rogue commanders, or the usual run of the mill atrocities you expect when people are exposed to war for long enough but as a strategic goal, endorsed and supported on an almost cultural level by Palestinians. It can be seen in the almost banal cruelty with which a young Israeli boy was befriended over the internet, lured to a meet with his "friend", and had his face caved in with a rock. The Israelis might not be much better, but they are better. For all the talk of the Gaza blockade, the Israelis ship food and medical supplies through the blockade to a civillian population that hates them. They provide medical care to civillians that hate them.

This might seem the least that could be done, but consider Germany in December 1918 - All during WW1, the Royal Navy had established and enforced an (illegal) blockade, starving the German civillians of food and medical supplies. A million non combatants died in the last two years of the war in Germany/Austria despite no fighting occuring in those lands. Resistance eventually collapsed in November, the Germans facing a humanitarian crisis, having already signed the armstrice in November, asked the allies to relax the blockade so that wheat, fats, condensed milk and medical supplies would be allowed through to their civillians. The allies refused. The blockade was maintained, even after the armstrice. In Bohemia, by February 1919, 20% of babies were born dead, another 40% died within one month. In March 1919, the British general commanding the armies occupying the Rhineland complained to London that his soldiers could not bear the sight of starving children.

I indicate these examples not to say that the Palestinians arent suffering too (blockades are always blunt instruments) but that the Israelis are enforcing their blockade in a far more humanitarian fashion than has been the practise throughout military conflict. Again, another indication that they are a more progressive force in the conflict.

The essential truth is that the Palestinians have lost. They need to make peace. They could have chosen to make peace in 1948. Or in 1967. Or in the 1990s. Or in the aftermath of Israels withdrawal from Gaza. At each turn, they have chosen instead to choose further conflict and strife, and they have lost more at each turn. All the time urged on to glorious defeat by their band of friends overseas.

So I feel sorry for the civillians. I condemn their leadership that leads them to such cruel ends. I condemn the goals and means of Hamas. And I accept that the Israelis represent a more democratic and liberal society than anything Hamas would propose. So if someone has to win the conflict, Id rather it was the Israelis.

Byron85

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Not really. Being "pro-Palestine" means, fundamentally, that you have taken a side. It's no black and white conflict, and the peaceful solution to it will involve both sides making sacrifices. Just because Israel have been worse than Hamas doesn't change that fact. The conflict cannot be simplified into an "us vs them" scenario.

If someone was truly pro-peace they would be out protesting when Hamas lobbed rockets into Israel, but I never see that. There's also a general trend amongst pro-Palestine people of ignoring any kind of rationale for Israel's actions. If I was living in fear of a rocket being fired into my child's school, I wouldn't be rolling over.

Being pro-peace means accepting these facts, and actively campaigning against Hamas too. As I said, I just never see that.

Have to disagree with you (is this a first??:eek:;)). Being pro-Palestinian is compatible with being pro-peace. It's the same as being Irish and being pro-peace. Would someone consider the Irish less pro-peace because of our history of terrorism aimed at the British?? People tend to forget that up until maybe the mid-nineties, the Irish were the terrorists of Europe.

I despise the actions Hamas as much as I despise the actions of the Israeli Government but what makes the Palestinian cause more justifiable, in my eyes, is that they are slowly being wiped out. The Israelis have a right to exist but not at the expense of innocent Palestinians. The issue of the firing of rockets into Israel is a contentious issue, to say the least, but it's the last act of a desperate people. The election of Hamas is a direct result of this desperation. It's not racism, anti-semitism or any other "ism". It's the desperation of a people who feel that they have no other option left.

Innocent people on both sides are being killed and innocent people on both sides are being used. Hamas cannot be ignored though and that's a major fault of the American and Israeli policy towards Palestine. Like it or not, Hamas were elected and you have to work with the cards that you were dealt. By trying to work around Hamas, which is what the Americans and Israelis are trying to do, will just lead to even more instability in an extremely sensitive area and might even lead to a civil war among the various groups in Palestine.

What both sides are doing is breeding extremism but which group of extremists has more power? Both have the power of their beliefs but only one of them has international power and a well trained, well funded, well armed defence force.

Memnoch

Sand wrote: »

I feel sympathy for the civillians on both sides.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have a territorial, and by some perceptions an existensial, dispute to solve and they're using violence - why not? Its solved 99% of mankinds problems quite successfully so far. In as far as it goes, I dont have any strong feelings either way - Side A wins, or Side B wins. Military conflict is inescapable.

But as Orwell said, one side is always more progressive than the other. As such, Id definitely have more sympathy for the Israelis than I would have for Hamas. Hamas have deliberately targeted civillians, not on some ad-hoc basis, or rogue commanders, or the usual run of the mill atrocities you expect when people are exposed to war for long enough but as a strategic goal, endorsed and supported on an almost cultural level by Palestinians. It can be seen in the almost banal cruelty with which a young Israeli boy was befriended over the internet, lured to a meet with his "friend", and had his face caved in with a rock. The Israelis might not be much better, but they are better. For all the talk of the Gaza blockade, the Israelis ship food and medical supplies through the blockade to a civillian population that hates them. They provide medical care to civillians that hate them...

I thought about writing a point by point refutation of your arguments, but really, for me, it boils down to this.

Hamas openly target and kill civilians. Israel maintain complete innocence and claim they go out of their way to not harm civilians and indeed put up every pretension not to (pretensions you've outlined in great detail). But Israel somehow always end up killing far more civilians than Hamas. Add journalists and aid workers into the mix.

There is no difference. But I like the eloquent post you wrote basically in favour of the extermination of the palestinian people. Since there has been a lot of mention of equal treatment and equal outcry on this topic, I wonder now if those who decry the people that "don't recognise the right of Israel to exist" will decry you equally for your affinity to the idea that the palestinian people should not exist.

But really, quite a brilliant post, dehumanising an entire people and classing them as less deserving of existence than another. And the clever language in which you've dressed it up has already earned you a thanks, and will perhaps many more.

You can dress it up in all the pretty language you want, but genocide by any other name is still that. Thanks for reminding me why I put you on ignore all that time ago.

Edit: Could it be that the reason Israel seem so much *purer* to their supporters is that they are so thorough in their brutality that they don't permit independent scrutiny that would make clear the yawning gulf between their words and their actions?

Scofflaw

They provide medical care to civillians that hate them

So do the HSE.

sorry, sorry,
Scofflaw

Sand

@Memnoch

Thanks for reminding me why I put you on ignore all that time ago.

So you could still read and reply to my posts? Are you sure you hit the right button?

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

I'm sorry but that pretty much has nothing to do with this discussion. As it stands, I did march against the invasion of Iraq. But this is a classic ruse to try and derail the discussion. Stick to the topic at hand.


Why? You can't be pro-Palestinian and pro-peace?

No it isnt. It is simply saying that bigger nations, who are potentially guilty of Geneva Convention breaches dont get the same treatment as Israel.

Well if you conceed that somebody can be pro-Israel and pro-peace then perhaps. However, the way both nations behave it is impossible to reconcile the two as things stand. Until people get the fact that it is a two way conflict, we are not going to learn in this country.

Wibbs

Sand I always like and get something from your posts, even if they may be at odds with my own angle on things. I take your points and agree to much of it(and if I may say, good to see you posting). I wouldnt agree over the Israeli side being the more moral. The fact is that since all the dates you mention one group have been squeezed more and more, have lost more people and have been forced into smaller and smaller enclaves and now in the case of one enclave are being starved out. And it aint the Israelis. IMHO the Israelis have been clever about how they've done this. The appearance of some civility is at play to the international view. On the ground that civility is little to be seen. Objectively its little to be seen, Look at the history of that part of the world in demographic maps over the last 40 odd years. The objective truth is that it is ethnic cleansing in principle as well as action. The cynic in me feels that no matter what the Palestinians do or dont do, the aim of Israel is to drive them from "their" land. It has been the stated aim since at least 1947. Looking at those maps proves it. Indeed no matter what truce or call for talks that has occurred in the past the Palestinian areas have gotten and continue to get smaller and smaller and smaller. TBH I doubt any sort of peace will come about until the palestinians are finally driven out. Peace in Israel anyway. Then again even if that day comes and with an eye on their history, I wouldn't want to be one of their neighbours if some nutbag settler deemed part of your land was deeded to them in the Torah.

jimmycrackcorm

For every Israeli killed, they take 100 Palestinian lives. Who can stand by and say that the threat, albeith very valid to Israel by Hamas, can justify this harsh response.

youcrazyjesus!

Jaap wrote: »

I am on the side of Israel all the way!
Was over in Edinburgh at the weekend when their was a pro-Palestinian rally being held yesterday...I was absolutely shocked by how many children there was there waving palestinian flags...shouldn't they not be playing football in a park on a sunny day rather than attend a gathering where people are chanting and there is a very big police presence!!!
Added to that...saw quite a few homeless people on the streets in Edinburgh...there are bigger problems far closer to home which maybe we should focus on!!! It is not only the innocent in Palestine that are starving...many people in the UK and Ireland need aid!!!
Maybe some of these pro-palestinian people can put a bit of effort in to helping the needy in Ireland in between organising rallies???

You're not allowed protest against injustice in Palestine if at the exact same time you don't also protest against homelessness? Wtf like.

I'd say the type of people who go along to pro-Palestinian protests are the first people to be nice to homeless people and possibly donate/volunteer to help them. Stop talking nonsense please.

Denerick

Wibbs wrote: »

Sand I always like and get something from your posts, even if they may be at odds with my own angle on things. I take your points and agree to much of it(and if I may say, good to see you posting). I wouldnt agree over the Israeli side being the more moral. The fact is that since all the dates you mention one group have been squeezed more and more, have lost more people and have been forced into smaller and smaller enclaves and now in the case of one enclave are being starved out. And it aint the Israelis. IMHO the Israelis have been clever about how they've done this. The appearance of some civility is at play to the international view. On the ground that civility is little to be seen. Objectively its little to be seen, Look at the history of that part of the world in demographic maps over the last 40 odd years. The objective truth is that it is ethnic cleansing in principle as well as action. The cynic in me feels that no matter what the Palestinians do or dont do, the aim of Israel is to drive them from "their" land. It has been the stated aim since at least 1947. Looking at those maps proves it. Indeed no matter what truce or call for talks that has occurred in the past the Palestinian areas have gotten and continue to get smaller and smaller and smaller. TBH I doubt any sort of peace will come about until the palestinians are finally driven out. Peace in Israel anyway. Then again even if that day comes and with an eye on their history, I wouldn't want to be one of their neighbours if some nutbag settler deemed part of your land was deeded to them in the Torah.

I would say that when settlement building was at its height, and when the Gaza strip and the Sinai saw waves of Jewish pioneers and settlers, a case could be made, associated with the concept of a 'greater Israel' that some charge of ethnic cleansing could be made.

But in reality it has little relation to the facts. Israel has a significant Arab and Muslim minority, many of whom have risen to senior positions in the civil service, government and military. Its parliament has Muslim members. There is no comparison to be made here with apartheid era South Africa or the ethnic dictatorship of the Serbs.