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

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.

SeaBreezes · 20-08-2014 12:08AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

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.

Sir, with respect, read the FULL thread. Right from the start, it might assist your 'nuanced' understanding of the full issue.

And yes, it IS that simple.
Treat people with dignity and respect. Let their children live in peace and education.
Honour previous agreements.

Be a nation of integrity and honesty. When you sign agreements honour them. Then, maybe, peace has a chance.

The argument... ' They are savages, they cannot be trusted' holds no water here. Same was said about the irish for 800 years. And yet here we are.

Tuisceanch · 20-08-2014 12:09AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

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

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.

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.

How exactly are we supposed to, as individuals, act against anti-semitic attacks in Europe. I live in Ireland and I haven't heard of any such attacks here.

BTW here is an article regarding the disengagement of Gaza in 2005 and who fired first ...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/12/isra-d30.html

Just there for your interest and not expected to be accepted as the gospel.

The video I posted for your attention earlier would provide you an insight into what motivates such attention on the issue of Israel-Palestine. One potential answer is the legacy of the Holocaust and the perceived besmirching of the victims by the subsequent Israeli government's actions.

Tuisceanch · 20-08-2014 12:16AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

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.

You really think that the Israeli government is engaged in such fuzzy policy making. They really invested that amount of money to build the infrastructure of the West Bank for the sole use of their citizens and subjected the native population to the book of a military occupation as a form of tough love and that really their grand plan is to leave and say "look we really didn't mean you any harm.We just had to teach you a lesson". From whence did this analysis come from?

Irish Praetorian · 20-08-2014 12:16AM

AngryHippie wrote: »

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.

For your first point, I believe that's the opposite of what I'm suggesting, I think Israeli actions in Gaza have responded to rocket attacks in the worst possible way, by incurring casualties and damage sufficient to incite a new generation to hatred of Israel and violent acts in pursuit of that hatred.

Now the blockade you can malign for many things, particularly during the first four years of its operation, but failing a blockade, what exactly manner of response do you imagine Israel could take to rocket attacks on its territory? Moreover, given the ability of Gaza to secure supplies of construction materials and rockets despite this blockade, do you not imagine that they would also have the ability to obtain means of securing their own territory? Can you imagine the massive opportunity cost squandered upon ineffectual rockets? I am sorry but I cannot but hold in contempt this group which purports to rule Gaza yet undertakes strikes which have had the effect of only inciting retribution and destruction.

As for shilling, apologizing and defending Israel, I will only say that I look forward to a future where an Israel and a Palestine can exist peacefully side by side, something I imagine most of you do to, even though I disagree with many of the means you would employ. I however, do NOT look forward to the prospect of this 'time of reckoning' for a nuclear armed state, in one of the most volatile regions in the world, to be confronted with an alliance of neighbours intent on its utter destruction - that's not a situation where ANYONE wins.

SeaBreezes · 20-08-2014 12:19AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

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.

FYI apparently, this is what happens when peaceful palestinian families try to live: http://m.bbc.com/news/magazine-27883685

Irish Praetorian · 20-08-2014 12:19AM

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Sir, with respect, read the FULL thread. Right from the start, it might assist your 'nuanced' understanding of the full issue.

And yes, it IS that simple.
Treat people with dignity and respect. Let their children live in peace and education.
Honour previous agreements.

Be a nation of integrity and honesty. When you sign agreements honour them. Then, maybe, peace has a chance.

The argument... ' They are savages, they cannot be trusted' holds no water here. Same was said about the irish for 800 years. And yet here we are.

Forgive me, but do you seriously believe that if we created a Palestinian state today and withdrew all the settlers, then tomorrow we would see the first day of unending peace? Even the most authoritative peace treaty is still going to be battling against hard-liners on both sides eager to destroy it and that legacy of hatred will continue for quite some time. Fundamentally, I do not believe that simply by moving the violence to a new border, will we have achieved any good.

Tuisceanch · 20-08-2014 12:25AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Forgive me, but do you seriously believe that if we created a Palestinian state today and withdrew all the settlers, then tomorrow we would see the first day of unending peace? Even the most authoritative peace treaty is still going to be battling against hard-liners on both sides eager to destroy it and that legacy of hatred will continue for quite some time. Fundamentally, I do not believe that simply by moving the violence to a new border, will we have achieved any good.

No of course it wouldn't but it would be one step in the right direction. The creation of a Palestinian state is not a gift of the Israelis but a simple matter of affording them their legitimate rights under international law. It shouldn't be up for debate! Israel get out of the West Bank and count yourself lucky that your leaders are not hanged for war crimes.

Irish Praetorian · 20-08-2014 12:26AM

Tuisceanch wrote: »

How exactly are we supposed to, as individuals, act against anti-semitic attacks in Europe. I live in Ireland and I haven't heard of any such attacks here.

BTW here is an article regarding the disengagement of Gaza in 2005 and who fired first ...

Just there for your interest and not expected to be accepted as the gospel.

The video I posted for your attention earlier would provide you an insight into what motivates such attention on the issue of Israel-Palestine. One potential answer is the legacy of the Holocaust and the perceived besmirching of the victims by the subsequent Israeli government's actions.

Thanks for the link however it seems to pertain to events in December, the withdrawal having taken place in September. As for acting against attacks, mercifully I think we've been spared here, the worst having taken place in the UK, France and Germany (I know). I'd offer links of my own, sadly I think the forum still suspects me of being an ad bot

Irish Praetorian · 20-08-2014 12:28AM

Tuisceanch wrote: »

No of course it wouldn't but it would be one step in the right direction. The creation of a Palestinian state is not a gift of the Israelis but a simple matter of affording them their legitimate rights under international law.

For us sure, but for an Israeli citizen living in Haifa or Tel Aviv, how do you sell to them the idea of being at greater risk, under more fire, subject to more banal interference, heck even having to put up with more settlers coming home

- nor is this something that can be done unilaterally, since any peace treaty is going to have to tackle border changes that both sides can agree to.

Tuisceanch · 20-08-2014 12:33AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

For us sure, but for an Israeli citizen living in Haifa or Tel Aviv, how do you sell to them the idea of being at greater risk, under more fire, subject to more banal interference, heck even having to put up with more settlers coming home - nor is this something that can be done unilaterally, since any peace treaty is going to have to tackle border changes that both sides can agree to.

I don't think it could be sold to the public. It would have to be imposed by the international community and given that the settlers are well armed I wouldn't expect them to go without a serious struggle. None of this is going to happen of course. I cannot perceive of a viable future for the Palestinians but maybe that's because I lack their courage and heart. That is why they are perceived by many here as a shining example of the spirit of humanity in the face of unimaginable adversity.

Irish Praetorian · 20-08-2014 12:42AM

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I don't think it could be sold to the public. It would have to be imposed by the international community and given that the settlers are well armed I wouldn't expect them to go without a serious struggle. None of this is going to happen of course. I cannot perceive of a viable future for the Palestinians but maybe that's because I lack their courage and heart. That is why they are perceived by many here as a shining example of the spirit of humanity in the face of unimaginable adversity.

Well I think you've hit the nail on the head here - how do you impose anything on a nuclear armed state convinced that its in a life or death struggle? Even the most recent upset in Russia has worked to their advantage, with many Israeli food companies targeted by boycotts in the West switching markets to Russia. I'm not so certain that the Palestinians are screwed however, the IS has managed to trigger a pretty speedy reconfiguration in Middle Eastern politics over the space of a few months, Hamas wasn't exactly popular in Gaza before the recent attacks and I'm not sure how they are now, to say nothing of developments in Jordan. However fundamentally I remain convinced that its not going to be our boycotting Israeli lemons that changes anything, but substantial changes between and within the two communities themselves.

Tuisceanch · 20-08-2014 12:52AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm not so certain that the Palestinians are screwed however, the IS has managed to trigger a pretty speedy reconfiguration in Middle Eastern politics over the space of a few months, Hamas wasn't exactly popular in Gaza before the recent attacks and I'm not sure how they are now, to say nothing of developments in Jordan.

It would be interesting if you could expand on the points you've made here.

Irish Praetorian · 20-08-2014 01:17AM

Tuisceanch wrote: »

It would be interesting if you could expand on the points you've made here.

My central point is, things can change very rapidly - a few months ago the Kurds were the largest ethnic group on the planet without a state, today they are rapidly expected to join the community of nations. In the interim, the IS is emerging with the backing of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as a major threat to just about everybody on the Euphrates, especially Iran, who having previously been more or less opposed to the interests of the US (or rather their chief ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, is now under the leadership of a reformist president and no longer a pariah for their attempted nuclear weapons programme, whilst their own client state in the form of Syria, or rather the Syria of Assad, is now seen as some kind of a bulwark against the threat of the IS, together with the aforementioned Kurds. With the rise of the IS, and its potential to adsorb funding previously shifted by Qatar and Saudi toward Hamas, we may be looking at a fundamental weakening of Hamas (already hit badly by the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) and its replacement in Gaza, providing an opportunity for a renewal of peace efforts first in Gaza and then in the wider Palestinian territories. The interesting possibility is of course Jordan, which despite having an ethnic Palestinian majority has been rather wary of the Palestinian cause since Black September. A change in that regime may provide the possibility for a Palestinian state that doesn't just end at the Dead Sea, but extends across the trans-Jordan, solving not only the problem of chronic overpopulation in Gaza, but neatly deals with Israel's need to have a secure border (the two countries having gotten along quite well since their peace treaty, amazing what billions of US dollars on both sides can do).

As you can see, its an extremely complex situation, but the one thing to take away is never say never.

NotASheeple · 20-08-2014 02:02AM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Is there a respectful form of address you would prefer?

Posters on this site don’t ‘address’ each other by title. You reply to, or ignore a post accordingly. Yes I know your account has been dormant for some years. But the etiquette hasn’t changed you know. So I'm guessing your rush to join the thread, must have confused you somewhat.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

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

It’s impossible to abhor the deaths and loss of life during WW2 and not condemn the Nazi’s themselves. Similarly, it’s impossible to condemn the deaths of innocent Palestinians throughout the decades and not abhor the actions of Zionist fanatics.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

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

I advised that you read the thread, because your knowledge will be greatly assisted by doing so. The answers are contained within. Assuming you want to find them of course.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

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.

At least you had the good sense this time, to discontinue your ludicrous comparison between the Irish & Israeli State.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

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

You seem to be deliberately trying to make complex, that which is not complex. Xenophobic, intolerant, ideologies based on hate like Nazism, Zionism ect. They are not that difficult to understand at all. But again, if you had the manners to read through the thread as I have suggested. You would see a consistent and in many cases, an overlapping definition/explanation of Zionism.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

your own definition appears to include some element of toxicity - perhaps you might expand?

Definition? I never gave, not attempted to give a definition of Zionism in my last post. I directed you to where you would find the enlightenment you seek. Always a big boo boo for me, when someone does not read a post correctly, or guilefully misinterprets it.

biko · 20-08-2014 03:36AM

Linking to an American paper (yes Jewish) as Swedish general media seems to have overlooked it...
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/18/swedish-woman-viciously-beaten-for-wearing-jewish-star-necklace/

A Muslim mob in Uppsala, Sweden last week set upon and severely beat a Jewish mother of four, for wearing a Jewish Star of David necklace, Israel’s NRG News reported Sunday.

While walking in one of the city’s largely Muslim populated neighborhoods, “A Muslim girl saw that I was wearing the Star of David on my neck and she started swearing at me and spat in my face. I got very upset and pushed her off” Sjögren told the World Zionist Organization Center for Countering Antisemitism.

“There were at least ten witnesses to the attack. All ten of them were wearing hijabs or scarfs in the colors of the PLO. Some surrounding witnesses claim that I ‘tripped’ and fell and that no one hurt me. It’s just unbelievable.”
Sjögren’s jaw was severely damaged, her eyes swollen, and she sustained injuries all over her body, according to the report.

“I cannot go to the police. The worst thing is that [the assailants] will get my name and address. They’ll know where to find me and know I am the Jew who reported it,” she said.

evo2000 · 20-08-2014 04:13AM

Israel is cutting the grass so to speak, they seem to do this every few years, you cant destroy Hamas but you can beat it down from time to time to keep it manageable as sadistic as it is, thats what there doing,

They tend to blame the Palestinians for electing hamas, but what choice do they have when they are in the biggest open prison in the world its there only means of fighting back.

But at the end of the day theres millions of issues to keep everyone arguing amongst themselves about this issue when in reality you only need to see whos being killed and by who to determine whats happening, israel wants Palestinians gone, they will keep edging away at gaza till they own it they will keep doing these slaughters till the outcry gets too much, then they will stop till its forgotten about and start edging away again... rinse and repeat till the thorn in there side is gone or so small it will only be local news.

The international community will do **** all about this because israel suits the western agenda down to the ground,

shedweller · 20-08-2014 10:33AM

So by extension, we (everybody) are ok with everything israel is doing to expand its borders.
....Oh wait, we're not. We've imposed sanctions on other countries that attempted a fraction of what israel have.

Could some well versed person enlighten me as to why that is so? Why the apparent bending of the rules, so to speak?

hju6 · 20-08-2014 11:14AM

My plea to the people of Israel: Liberate yourselves by liberating Palestine

Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, in an exclusive article for Haaretz, calls for a global boycott of Israel and urges Israelis and Palestinians to look beyond their leaders for a sustainable solution to the crisis in the Holy Land.

http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.610687?v=66691173328C172D77ED27A198582751

Vandango · 20-08-2014 12:17PM

biko wrote: »

Linking to an American paper (yes Jewish) as Swedish general media seems to have overlooked it...
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/18/swedish-woman-viciously-beaten-for-wearing-jewish-star-necklace/

Deplorable to see a few bigots behave like that. But is anyone surprised to see it happening? No I doubt it. Sad to see ordinary, decent Jews having to pay for the consequences of the Netanyahu and his fellow psychopaths.

RustyNut · 20-08-2014 12:22PM

Vandango wrote: »

Deplorable to see a few bigots behave like that. But is anyone surprised to see it happening? No I doubt it. Sad to see ordinary, decent Jews having to pay for the consequences of the Netanyahu and his fellow psychopaths.

Indeed and one of the zionists favorite propaganda tactics is to blur the line between anti zionism and anti semitism.

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

Comments

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