Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Does It Really Matter...
MarkS

If we celebrate 60 years of ethnic cleansing?

So they're gearing up to celebrate 60 years since 1948.

I'm reading the excellent 'The Great War for Civilisation: The conquest of the middle east' by Robert Fisk
(spoiler warning! civilisation loses)

Meanwhile the settlements expand. Arabs are refused building permits. The ghettos of Gazza and the west bank are becoming uninhabitable.

Why is this OK when ethnic cleansing elsewhere is bad?

Is it just better PR? Relics of Colonial rule? Western guilt? Mad fundamentalists?


(answers which resolve to 'God gave Israel the land' will be discarded).
Blue Peter

Re: If we celebrate 60 years of ethnic cleansing?

MarkS wrote:
Why is this OK when ethnic cleansing elsewhere is bad?

Is it just better PR? Relics of Colonial rule? Western guilt? Mad fundamentalists?




I think that it's only "ethnic cleansing" when it's "bad" people doing it. When it's "good" people doing it - us - then it's "very complicated". So, Jeremy Bowen has to write very carefully:

Quote:

Why did they leave?

The reasons why the refugees left their homes are still bitterly contested, by historians as well as by leaders and activists.

Palestinian refugees await an answer to their demand to return (photo)

Much of the controversy swirls around Plan D, which was adopted by Mr Ben Gurion and his generals in March 1948.

Some historians say it was a blueprint for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine. Others say it was a simple military plan for seizing strategic ground and there was no political scheme to drive the Arabs out of a future state.

It is politically red-hot because agreement on the causes of the problem might eventually be part of a solution, and leaders do not want to abandon deeply-held positions.

Israel's President, Shimon Peres, an aide to Mr Ben Gurion in 1948, told the BBC in an interview to mark his country's 60th anniversary that it bore no responsibility for the exodus of Palestinians.

"I was present at the occasion," President Peres said. "I don't mind what historians are writing. Ben Gurion did not want the Arabs to leave the country."



When we (and here, Israel as essentially Western as opposed to Middle Eastern) do bad things, then events become very complicated - lots of motives, lots of mistakes, lots of misunderstandings, lots of confusion about what actually happened. When our enemies do bad things, it's always very simple - they are evil, so that's what they do,


Peter.
Brownbear

Perhaps being invaded by a number of countries on their first day of nationhood made the Israelis think - foolishly suspicious types that they are - that there was an immediate threat to their existence. Perhaps after the war which followed, and which Israel won though vastly outnumbered and outgunned, the other countries ought to have made peace. Instead they have waged a number of wars since, all of which they've lost.

Perhaps we ought to celebrate the survival for sixty years of a state subjected to the incessant threat of extermination (as the Sec-Gen of the Arab league put it when the first war was launched, "this is a war of extermination").

Perhaps if the Arab countries had used their influence and vast wealth to help broker peace, rather than using the plight of the displaced as a cynical PR exercise, rather than encouraging the continuation of a futile war in which the Palestinians have suffered more than anyone, then the situation might be less unpleasant for all concerned.
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:
Perhaps being invaded by a number of countries on their first day of nationhood made the Israelis think - foolishly suspicious types that they are - that there was an immediate threat to their existence.


Surely the difficulty is that to have room for the Jewish nation, you had to oust the people who were there already. People generally don't like that - I'm sure that you wouldn't.

And if you define yourself in exclusive terms and view the other inhabitants (Arabs) around you and within you as threats, then there can be no peace.

I'd go so far as to say that only a one state solution will work,


Peter.
Brownbear

Blue Peter wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
Perhaps being invaded by a number of countries on their first day of nationhood made the Israelis think - foolishly suspicious types that they are - that there was an immediate threat to their existence.


Surely the difficulty is that to have room for the Jewish nation, you had to oust the people who were there already. People generally don't like that - I'm sure that you wouldn't.


Most of the land that became Israel was bought by Zionists in the years between the wars. It was the British who refused to let the Jews immigrate in large numbers. The population displacements of which you speak took place during the unprovoked invasion by Arab states, and their obduracy in refusing to admit they had been beaten ensured that the displaced Arabs would continue in limbo.
MarkS

That isnt true (about the land sales). Yes zionists had bough some land - but you really think that they bought up all of palestine?
One thing they did do was change the rules on land ownership - all of a sudden palestinians had to produce specific documents to prove that they owned land. Documents that generally did not exist after the collapse of the ottoman empire.

There were well documented massacres of palestinians in 1948 and after by eg the stern and irgun gangs.

there were also forced sales - coincidentally very similar to some of the stuff that happened in germany in the 1930's.

Nor does that in any way at all justify the expansion of settlements in breach of a number of un resolutions - and remember that any un security council resolution against Israel means that they did something significantly wrong, because the US veto pretty much any criticism at all.
Brownbear

Ah, well, you are of one opinion, I of another. I enormously admire the Israelis and what they have achieved in so short a time. It should not blind anyone to their failings and the wrongs they've committed, but I suppose that if all your neighbours want to kill you and all your people, if they say so often and try to do so at any available opportunity, then sometimes judgement is not all it might have been in less dire circumstances.

It is still the case, I believe, that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Arab citizens take part in a free deomcracy, and have never lived under a military dictatorship or tribal feudal chief.
Andy B

I can understand Israel celebrating surviving for sixty years. I dont think we in the west or the arab nations have much to be proud of.
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:
Most of the land that became Israel was bought by Zionists in the years between the wars. It was the British who refused to let the Jews immigrate in large numbers. The population displacements of which you speak took place during the unprovoked invasion by Arab states, and their obduracy in refusing to admit they had been beaten ensured that the displaced Arabs would continue in limbo.


"population displacements" oh, come on...

Why should it matter what another state may or may not say with regard to a person, not of that state, returning to their own land or property?


Peter.
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:
It is still the case, I believe, that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Arab citizens take part in a free deomcracy, and have never lived under a military dictatorship or tribal feudal chief.


But they are second class citizens. You presumably didn't support, say, the treatment of coloured people in the apartheid years of South Africa?


Peter.
Brownbear

Blue Peter wrote:

But they are second class citizens. You presumably didn't support, say, the treatment of coloured people in the apartheid years of South Africa?
Peter.


Well, black South Africans did not have the vote, were paid less for the same work, did not sit in parliament, did not hold ranking posts in the Armed Forces and were forced to live apart in racially segregated areas. None of which is true of Israeli Arabs.

So I can't quite work out how you have formulated the idea that they are second-class citizens.
MarkS

Brownbear wrote:
So I can't quite work out how you have formulated the idea that they are second-class citizens.


In my case by spending time in the country, how about you?
Behemoth

There is the small matter of it being a Jewish State.

"hey, you may have the passport but you're not one if us really" sort of message.

Simplified, obviously.
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:

But they are second class citizens. You presumably didn't support, say, the treatment of coloured people in the apartheid years of South Africa?
Peter.


Well, black South Africans did not have the vote, were paid less for the same work, did not sit in parliament, did not hold ranking posts in the Armed Forces and were forced to live apart in racially segregated areas. None of which is true of Israeli Arabs.

So I can't quite work out how you have formulated the idea that they are second-class citizens.


That's why I chose the coloureds as being rather closer to the situation in Israel,


Peter.
Brownbear

MarkS wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
So I can't quite work out how you have formulated the idea that they are second-class citizens.


In my case by spending time in the country, how about you?


Well, I have spent time there, if that gives me more of a right to hold a view.

Blue Peter wrote:

Why should it matter what another state may or may not say with regard to a person, not of that state, returning to their own land or property?
Peter.


It's more what they have done - continuing to launch wars against Israel and losing them rather than accepting a defeat and negotiating a better deal for the displaced people (which is what they are, displaced. That isn't a value-loaded term but a statement of fact).

Might the evidence not support the notion that the Arab states don't give a tuppeny damn for the displaced Arabs, but find them a useful means of generating anti-Israel PR?
Blue Peter

Behemoth wrote:
There is the small matter of it being a Jewish State.

"hey, you may have the passport but you're not one if us really" sort of message.

Simplified, obviously.


I think that the clearest example, and one which ties in with the thread, is that any Jew in the world has the right to settle in Israel. Palestinian refugees who own property/land in Israel are not allowed back to take control of what is theirs. Discrimination on the basis of religion, not something that is generally celebrated,


Peter.
Brownbear

Ah, if only the silly Jews would stop being so suspicious and determined to have a homeland. Just because pretty much everybody's kicked the living daylights out of them for the last three thousand or so years is no reason for them to decide never to trust themselves to the tender mercies of the world again.

The Jews are unique in the problems they need as a people to address, as they have a genetic inheritence that has caused them to be persecuted wherever in the world they settle, and have never until now had a country to which they could return, no fellows with whom to make a last stand. Therefore they have had to come up with a unique solution. It's unfair in places. But keep attacking them, losing, and then going off in a sulk hasn't done their opponents much good, and has done enormous harm.
Behemoth

Remember the population of non-Jewish Israelis is increasing faster than the Jewish population and soon the the Jewish State will be the minority within its own borders. In order to protect the Jewish state some form of 'cleansing' will be required. Such a considered approach will be unpleasant but necessary and as such defensible?

Perhaps.
Brownbear

Behemoth wrote:
Remember the population of non-Jewish Israelis is increasing faster than the Jewish population and soon the the Jewish State will be the minority within its own borders. In order to protect the Jewish state some form of 'cleansing' will be required. Such a considered approach will be unpleasant but necessary and as such defensible?

Perhaps.


Ah - so they are morally reprehensible because they might do something bad in the future. Now it all makes sense.
Jonnyboy

Brownbear wrote:
Ah - so they are morally reprehensible because they might do something bad in the future. Now it all makes sense.


Isn't that broadly similar to your answer regarding displaced arabs not being allowed to return and claim their property?
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:
It's more what they have done - continuing to launch wars against Israel and losing them rather than accepting a defeat and negotiating a better deal for the displaced people (which is what they are, displaced. That isn't a value-loaded term but a statement of fact).


I can't really decide whether to ask:

What deal is on offer for the "displaced people"?

Or to point out that it's a general principle of international law that people should not benefit from aggression.

Or to ask BB what he would do if the French over ran the UK and pushed the most of the citizens of Devon into some ghetto in Cornwall, whilst reducing those Devonians who remained to a second-class status? Would he say, 'Oui, monsieur, c'est un cop fair. Vous avez gagne, what kind of deal me pouvez-vous cut?' Judging by the many posts which I've seen BB write, I can't quite see it,


Peter.
Brownbear

Blue Peter wrote:

Or to ask BB what he would do if the French over ran the UK and pushed the most of the citizens of Devon into some ghetto in Cornwall, whilst reducing those Devonians who remained to a second-class status? Would he say, 'Oui, monsieur, c'est un cop fair. Vous avez gagne, what kind of deal me pouvez-vous cut?' Judging by the many posts which I've seen BB write, I can't quite see it.
Peter.


Well, you see the French have a homeland already. It's called France. Which is why they're called French.
tahir

I can't afford (timewise) to get drawn into this right now but I'm pretty much with the majority here.

BB is totally right about the rest of the (hugely wealthy) arab nations around that could have helped resolve this situation. I think the status quo suits a lot of arab regimes as well as the more extreme Israelis.
Behemoth

Brownbear wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Remember the population of non-Jewish Israelis is increasing faster than the Jewish population and soon the the Jewish State will be the minority within its own borders. In order to protect the Jewish state some form of 'cleansing' will be required. Such a considered approach will be unpleasant but necessary and as such defensible?

Perhaps.


Ah - so they are morally reprehensible because they might do something bad in the future. Now it all makes sense.


You have argued passionately for the right of the Jewish state of Israel to defend itself in the face of its destruction. the right for a nation to defend itself is recognised. What happens when the the threat to the state is internal? Of course once the demographic threshold is crossed the democratic Jewish state of Israel will peacefully vote itself out of existance and accept that the '3000 years of history' argument no longer applies. Your a cynic at heart, do think that will happen?
Behemoth

tahir wrote:
I can't afford (timewise) to get drawn into this right now but I'm pretty much with the majority here.

BB is totally right about the rest of the (hugely wealthy) arab nations around that could have helped resolve this situation. I think the status quo suits a lot of arab regimes as well as the more extreme Israelis.


Yes. They were recently castigated for not actually coughing up much trumpted development cash.
Brownbear

I must say, I find the title of the thread a deliberate provocation - if I were the nervous type I might even find it offensive. It seems to imply that ethnic cleansing is all Israel has done or is noted for, indeed implies that persecuting Arabs for no good reason is the entire sum and purpose of the state of Israel.

Should someone start a thread on some celebration of African states gaining nationhood with the title, Should we celebrate years of brutal dictatorships, corruption and Idi Amin eating people? they would be cried to scorn, and very properly too.
tahir

Agree re the thread title, any chance of changing it Mark?
Brownbear

tahir wrote:
Agree re the thread title, any chance of changing it Mark?


I think it ought to stay as it is. It's indicative of a general state of mind re. Israel, and that fact that only a general supporter of Israel commented upon or even noticed it is also perhaps food for thought.
tahir

Brownbear wrote:
I think it ought to stay as it is. It's indicative of a general state of mind re. Israel, and that fact that only a general supporter of Israel commented upon or even noticed it is also perhaps food for thought.


I'll acknowledge that there have been huge wrongs by the Palestinians and of course the arab states in general. I've always held the Jewish people in high regard (speaking as someone who grew up surrounded by Jews and started out in the rag trade when the trade was pretty much all Jewish) but the conduct of the state of Israel isn't exactly becoming of a "free democracy" and B's point re demographics is as valid and thought provoking as your response re thread title.

Gotta go.
Behemoth

When I saw the title I thought it was going to refer to the annexation or East Prussia and Poland's post-war shift Westward, displacing a couple of millions of ethnic Germans in the process. Embarassed
Brownbear

Behemoth wrote:
Of course once the demographic threshold is crossed the democratic Jewish state of Israel will peacefully vote itself out of existance and accept that the '3000 years of history' argument no longer applies. Your a cynic at heart, do think that will happen?


I'm a realist in both senses of the word, and no I don't think it will happen. But neither do I think that automatically means that the Jews will simply deport or murder all the Arabs, or even revoke their citizenship rights. But unless the Arab states engage fully in the peace process, Israel will find itself unable to find a 'two state solution' and will in due course face so unappetising a choice.
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:

I'm a realist in both senses of the word, and no I don't think it will happen. But neither do I think that automatically means that the Jews will simply deport or murder all the Arabs, or even revoke their citizenship rights. But unless the Arab states engage fully in the peace process, Israel will find itself unable to find a 'two state solution' and will in due course face so unappetising a choice.


Why do you think that even if there is a two state solution it will affect the demographic problem, which, as I understand it, is internal to the Israeli state?


Peter.
Blue Peter

tahir wrote:
Agree re the thread title, any chance of changing it Mark?


I think that I disagree on that. The Palestinians refer to that period as the Nakba, or catastrophe, because many were driven from their homes. Ethnic cleansing did go on, and is still going on (the Israelis taking more land, demolishing Palestinian homes). And, they run an apartheid state. We are quick to use both those terms when official enemies are involved, we should at least have the grace to use the same terms when those "on our side" perform similar actions. Or, does the white man still talk with a forked tongue?


Peter.
Brownbear

Blue Peter wrote:
The Palestinians refer to that period as the Nakba, or catastrophe
Peter.


Well, that settles it, then. Silly old me.
Jonnyboy

Arguing the toss over who was right or wrong 60 years ago seems to be one of the reasons why the current problems aren't being addressed now. I find the bombing of civilian areas by Israel abhorrent, but I find the actions of the Palestinian terrorists who launch attacks from those very areas equally abhorrent.

I find it almost impossible to understand why the terrorists seem to launch attacks on Israel at the same time as Israel comes under political pressue from the west, it seems to completely undermine the approach of those who are looking for an Israeli withdrawal from certain occupied areas.

As I write this I'm considering the possibility that there is no coherent control by the palestinian authority.
Brownbear

Jonnyboy wrote:


I find it almost impossible to understand why the terrorists seem to launch attacks on Israel at the same time as Israel comes under political pressue from the west, it seems to completely undermine the approach of those who are looking for an Israeli withdrawal from certain occupied areas.

As I write this I'm considering the possibility that there is no coherent control by the palestinian authority.


Another possibility is that the terrorists would rather not have peace. Most of them are in positions of power and authority which they would lose in the event of peace, they would also lose their control of the Palestinian population.

Israeli retaliation is the chief engine which turns public opinion against them, and which enshrines the terrorists as noble armed defenders rather than criminal brutes. I'd bet a pound against a pinch of poo that the great mass of ordianary Palestinians just want to make some sort of deal, live their lives and be reasonable. Without Israeli responses being provoked so often, they might be able to do that.
MarkS

tahir wrote:
Agree re the thread title, any chance of changing it Mark?


The title was deliberate. When similar behaviour has been exhibited by other states it is called ethnic cleansing. Explain why it shouldn't be the same for Israel.

Brownbear wrote:
I must say, I find the title of the thread a deliberate provocation - if I were the nervous type I might even find it offensive. It seems to imply that ethnic cleansing is all Israel has done or is noted for, indeed implies that persecuting Arabs for no good reason is the entire sum and purpose of the state of Israel.


Good job you aren't the nervous type then isn't it?
The removal of the people who previously occupied the land now called Israel has been one of the major tasks though, wouldn't you say? When you say 'no good reason' that implies to no meaningful purpose, which isn't the case either.

Brownbear wrote:
Should someone start a thread on some celebration of African states gaining nationhood with the title, Should we celebrate years of brutal dictatorships, corruption and Idi Amin eating people? they would be cried to scorn, and very properly too.


Really?
If say someone tried to celebrate x years of post colonial democracy in Zimbabwe. You'd object to me making a post about dictators etc?

but of course it's not the same at all. The Africans were already in their countries and were being managed by European masters. Then the colonial powers left. A closer analogy would be someone celebrating x years of the fine Belgian occupation of the Congo.
Brownbear

Being beastly to the Palestinians isn't all that Israel stands for, just as African countries have achieved a lot more than wars, corruption and coups d'etat. There is a difference between referring to something as part of a debate, and framing the entire debate with reference to one particular aspect of it.
MarkS

Jonnyboy wrote:
As I write this I'm considering the possibility that there is no coherent control by the palestinian authority.


Indeed - one of the deliberate intentions behind Israeli policy has been to marginalise any power structures among the Palestinians.
The entire set up of the Palestinan authority has been to hand over responsibility without authority.

Hamas has taken over as most influential organisation. Guess which state supported and pushed hamas in the early days?
Brownbear

MarkS wrote:
Guess which state supported and pushed hamas in the early days?


Are you going to start a guessing-poll or just post it and end the suspense?
Blue Peter

Jonnyboy wrote:
Arguing the toss over who was right or wrong 60 years ago seems to be one of the reasons why the current problems aren't being addressed now.

From our position here, it might indeed be arguing the toss, but for those who have been displaced from their land, there is slightly more to it.

BB didn't answer the question about France, but how would you feel?

Quote:

I find the bombing of civilian areas by Israel abhorrent, but I find the actions of the Palestinian terrorists who launch attacks from those very areas equally abhorrent.

Violence is abhorrent. However, I believe that an occupied people do have the right of resistance. It's also worth noting that the attacks are not equal; Israel has one of the strongest armies in the world. Far more Palestianians are killed than Israelis.

Quote:

I find it almost impossible to understand why the terrorists seem to launch attacks on Israel at the same time as Israel comes under political pressue from the west, it seems to completely undermine the approach of those who are looking for an Israeli withdrawal from certain occupied areas.

Israel isn't coming under pressure to sort this out. Israel does not want to withdraw back to the 1967 borders, per the UN resolutions. It is bulding new settlements in land outside the '67 borders. The US is obviously quite happy with Israel, since it provides it with huge amounts of money.

Quote:

As I write this I'm considering the possibility that there is no coherent control by the palestinian authority.


The Palestinians have been split in two; the explusion of Fatah from the Gaza strip happened when Hamas got wind of a US backed coup against Hamas there. I think that a divided Palestinian "entity" would suit Israel and the US just fine.


Peter.
MarkS

Brownbear wrote:


Another possibility is that the terrorists would rather not have peace. Most of them are in positions of power and authority which they would lose in the event of peace, they would also lose their control of the Palestinian population.

Israeli retaliation is the chief engine which turns public opinion against them, and which enshrines the terrorists as noble armed defenders rather than criminal brutes. I'd bet a pound against a pinch of poo that the great mass of ordianary Palestinians just want to make some sort of deal, live their lives and be reasonable. Without Israeli responses being provoked so often, they might be able to do that.


Certainly there are poeple on both side who do very well out of the conflict.

But lets be clear about 'retaliation' as you call it. Some idiot fires a few shots at the Israelis, generally hurts no-one.
Israel pulls down the houses of maybe 100 people and kills a dozen. Or cuts off medical supplies or fuel to thousands.

Some kids throw stones (and yes I know that 'stones' may mean big lumps of concrete). IDF policy? shoot to kill. Break the limbs of anyone they can catch (although I belive that stopped when one of the Israeli TV programs showed the deliberate snapping of the legs of a batch of prisoners).

The 'kill rates' show that Israel kills approx 3 times as many Palestinians as the Palestinians kill Israelis. Look at the casualty/Injury rates and that ratio goes through the roof.

Look at the level of investigation of murders by the Israeli military.

That isnt 'retaliation' It is at the very least 'collective punishment', some may have other terms.
mark

Ok -

comeone lets have sense here
neither the 60 years of ethnic cleanisn nor brownbears "the Israelis state can do no wrong and what wrong it has done can be excused because of previous western oppression of the Jews"

It was not the Arabs who wrought the holocaust. It was Europeans

Before the Zionists movement and the massive resettlng of Israel the Jews who livd in Palestine (mainly arabic speaking and naturalised) generally lived comparitive in peace with their palestinian neighbours and suffered nothing like the persecution they did in europe (and lets not forget Britain had strong anti semitic elements before the war largely cured us of that!!)

During and since the establishment of the Israelis state non Jewish Arab speaking Palestians (Muslim, Christian and other minorities) have been forced from their homes in great numbers - many have moved abroad forming vast refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza, and Jordan. Others with more money have moved to form exiled communities in the US, Europe and the gulf states. Many of the Arab speakers who remain have been moved from their homeland into smaller ghettos.

I have spoken to Arabs who fled during the troubled times - the Jewish state confiscated their homes in Nazareth and Galillee when they abandoned them Where any compensationwas payed it was not enough to buy back a similar home. At the same time Jews from all over the world were encouraged to settle in Israel and buy property at subsidised prices.

Likewise Arabs suffer frequent road blocks and curfews and frequently lost their jobs and businesses to the Jewish incomers.

The ordinary and generally peace loving Palestinian and Israeli Arabs have been outmanoevered at every turn.

So while I agree that Israel has a right to defend itself and to maintain safe borders - it does not have a right to land grab

Whilever Israel launches powerful missiles into Gaza killing many more civilians than all the Palestiians suicide bombers and makeshift rockets put together , it copmplaints that it is only defending itself ring hollow.

I have a particular relationship with a schol for Deaf children in Gaza city. It is packed to crowded as Israeli military made the othe rschol s for the deaf (including th eone run i think by world vision in Rafa unihabitable) When i last made contact they had no batteries for hearting aids as they were forbidden by the blockade. The school bus could not run as the Israeli army was blockading petrol. They only had power for 4 hours a day as the Isaaeli government was rationin powr to the strip.

That is not defending itself - that is sheer bloody opppression!
Those deaf kids never fired any missiles or carried any bombs. it aint their war. They just want to go to school and learn in peace!

Israel has an army, it has nuclear weapons - it can and does stand upfor itself. But who wil speak for the little ones who's parents have no job, have precious little food.
And when they do fight back its with pathetic home made weapons - unless the west intervenes to force Israel to accept basic human rights or to establish an independent palestinian state then the suffering and the palestinian attempts at guerilla war to draw attention to their plight are likely to continue forever!

mark
Brownbear

MarkS wrote:

But lets be clear about 'retaliation' as you call it. Some idiot fires a few shots at the Israelis, generally hurts no-one.
Israel pulls down the houses of maybe 100 people and kills a dozen. Or cuts off medical supplies or fuel to thousands.


The terrorists are much more competent at what they do than that. I'm surprised, with your approval of 'resistance to occupation' that you don't give them proper credit for their effectivenes.
Brownbear

mark wrote:
brownbears "the Israelis state can do no wrong and what wrong it has done can be excused because of previous western oppression of the Jews"



Please provide a quote of where I have said anything of the kind.

Or an apology for grossly misrepresenting my argument.
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:
Being beastly to the Palestinians isn't all that Israel stands for, just as African countries have achieved a lot more than wars, corruption and coups d'etat. There is a difference between referring to something as part of a debate, and framing the entire debate with reference to one particular aspect of it.


Surely the point is that we are being asked to celebrate the founding of the Jewish state 60 years ago. However, when you look more closely, you see that there was another side involved and for them, that period was a catastrophe. And, indeed, it was ethnic cleansing, which we don't generally support. So we are asked to take sides, and it would appear that we are asked to be on the side of ethnic cleansers and to celebrate 60 years of an apartheid state.

And, in a sense, being "beastly to Palestinians" is what Israel stands for. This whole issue dominates the society. There's a nice article by Uri Avnery:

http://counterpunch.com/avnery05052008.html

Quote:

Most of all he would be shocked to discover that the brutal war {1948}, which killed him and wounded me, together with thousands of others, is still going on at full blast. It determines the entire life of the nation. It fills the first pages of the newspapers and heads the news bulletins.

That our army, the army that really was "we", has become something quite different, an army whose main occupation us to oppress another people.



It goes on to look at the way that Israel has been set up as a European bridgehead in the midst of the barbaric Middle East, and maintaining civilization and keeping it pure and separate from the corrupting evil around them is what the country is all about,


Peter.
Brownbear

Erm - how does the opinion of one man provide proof of anything other than his holding it?
mark

Brownbear wrote:
mark wrote:
brownbears "the Israelis state can do no wrong and what wrong it has done can be excused because of previous western oppression of the Jews"



Please provide a quote of where I have said anything of the kind.

Or an apology for grossly misrepresenting my argument.


It was mainly based on your post which

said
Quote:
Ah, if only the silly Jews would stop being so suspicious and determined to have a homeland. Just because pretty much everybody's kicked the living daylights out of them for the last three thousand or so years is no reason for them to decide never to trust themselves to the tender mercies of the world again.

The Jews are unique in the problems they need as a people to address, as they have a genetic inheritence that has caused them to be persecuted wherever in the world they settle, and have never until now had a country to which they could return, no fellows with whom to make a last stand. Therefore they have had to come up with a unique solution. It's unfair in places. But keep attacking them, losing, and then going off in a sulk hasn't done their opponents much good, and has done enormous harm.


in which it apears that you argue that the past injustice the Jews have suffered excuses their present stance! Well at least it appeared you were trying to say that in the context of the thread.

If I have misunderstood you (which I hope i have) have my apologies .

The important thing to deal with today is present not historic injustices.
It is the West that should make reparation to the Jews for allowing the holocaust etc not the palestinians - having scapegoated the Jews once it doesn't make it right now to allow the palestinains to become the new scapegoats.

mark
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:
Erm - how does the opinion of one man provide proof of anything other than his holding it?


I assume that you are referring to the Uri Avnery piece? He is a respected commentator on Israel. Of course, he may be wrong, or he may be one of the people who are well able to judge the mood of the times. I suspect that he has a rather better grasp of what is going on in Israel than anyone here,


Peter.
Brownbear

Mark,
Given that in your quote I specifically refer to "unfairness" against Arabs, as I do in several other posts, that cannot reasonably be construed as saying that Israel 'can do no wrong'.
Brownbear

Blue Peter wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
Erm - how does the opinion of one man provide proof of anything other than his holding it?


I assume that you are referring to the Uri Avnery piece? He is a respected commentator on Israel. Of course, he may be wrong, or he may be one of the people who are well able to judge the mood of the times. I suspect that he has a rather better grasp of what is going on in Israel than anyone here,


Peter.


So what you are saying is, that if we count up all the opinion pieces written by people who've lived in Israel or the Occupied Territories, of whatever belief, whoever has the most supporting them will be judged the winner?
Jonnyboy

Brownbear wrote:



Israeli retaliation is the chief engine which turns public opinion against them, and which enshrines the terrorists as noble armed defenders rather than criminal brutes. I'd bet a pound against a pinch of poo that the great mass of ordianary Palestinians just want to make some sort of deal, live their lives and be reasonable. Without Israeli responses being provoked so often, they might be able to do that.


I would agree with that.
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:



Israeli retaliation is the chief engine which turns public opinion against them, and which enshrines the terrorists as noble armed defenders rather than criminal brutes. I'd bet a pound against a pinch of poo that the great mass of ordianary Palestinians just want to make some sort of deal, live their lives and be reasonable. Without Israeli responses being provoked so often, they might be able to do that.


How do you determine that it is Palestinian provocation and Israeli retaliation rather than the other way round?


Peter.
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
Erm - how does the opinion of one man provide proof of anything other than his holding it?


I assume that you are referring to the Uri Avnery piece? He is a respected commentator on Israel. Of course, he may be wrong, or he may be one of the people who are well able to judge the mood of the times. I suspect that he has a rather better grasp of what is going on in Israel than anyone here,


Peter.


So what you are saying is, that if we count up all the opinion pieces written by people who've lived in Israel or the Occupied Territories, of whatever belief, whoever has the most supporting them will be judged the winner?


No, that's not what I wrote, is it?


Peter.
Behemoth

Blue Peter wrote:
How do you determine that it is Palestinian provocation and Israeli retaliation rather than the other way round?Peter.


If they both stopped it would help. However a lot of people wouldn't know what to do with themselves. If defines who they are and they are scared od doing something different.
mark

Behemoth wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
How do you determine that it is Palestinian provocation and Israeli retaliation rather than the other way round?Peter.


If they both stopped it would help. However a lot of people wouldn't know what to do with themselves. If defines who they are and they are scared od doing something different.


I think you can't just talk about Palestinians and Israelis.

Most Palestinians want peace - likewise most Israelis

but their are those who want to wipe out the other on both sides

the majority of moderate palestinians want some land back (roll back to the UN agreed boundaries) and freedom of movement so they can get jobs and earn a crust. They want the right to vote - and an end to encroachment They want their relatives living abroad to be allowed to return to visit or even settle near them. They want open borders so they can participate in international trade and benefit from tourism

Moderate Israelis want to live in peace and to catch a bus knowing there won't be a suicide bomber.
There wil be no solution until all sides and factions, including the extremists we don't like, are included in talks. You can't make peace if their is no diplomacy
Jonnyboy

Blue Peter wrote:


we are being asked to celebrate the founding of the Jewish state 60 years ago.


Are we?
Brownbear

On the matter of the original boundaries, it should be noted that from a defensive point of view they leave Israel in a very insecure position. It ought to further be remembered that the reason that the West Bank and Golan Heights were taken was that the Syrians used the Heights to site artillery which they would periodically use to shell Israeli towns. Ony return to insecure borders would have to be acompanied by the deployment some sort of international force, the sort with teeth, or Israel will never agree.

I think they would be right not to agree to such military folly.

Jonnyboy wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:


we are being asked to celebrate the founding of the Jewish state 60 years ago.


Are we?


Nobody has asked me to do so. The Israelis certainly are doing so, and I wish them well.
Jonnyboy

Brownbear wrote:
The Israelis certainly are doing so.


I'd be amazed if they aren't.

TBH, if some of the most political astute minds in the world can't broker peace, I'm not sure that people here are going to come up with anything soon.
mark

Brownbear wrote:
On the matter of the original boundaries, it should be noted that from a defensive point of view they leave Israel in a very insecure position. It ought to further be remembered that the reason that the West Bank and Golan Heights were taken was that the Syrians used the Heights to site artillery which they would periodically use to shell Israeli towns. Ony return to insecure borders would have to be acompanied by the deployment some sort of international force, the sort with teeth, or Israel will never agree.

I think they would be right not to agree to such military folly.



but that is a crazy argument!
Because the same applies the other way
and all you end up is both sides fighting to gain security
its exactly the same sort of argument Hamas uses to bolster its militaristic position
By the same argument the Lebanese would seize Northern Israel to protect against Israeli incursions into Lebanon.
By the same argument the Arabs Syria and Iran would be stupid not to seek to become nuclear states

At the end of the day their needs to be a settlement - and it needs compromise. And it needs each side to give some ground.

If there is to be a peace settlement some things wil have to be agreed which may compromise the military position but may indeed win peace.
Jonnyboy

Quote:
Ony return to insecure borders would have to be acompanied by the deployment some sort of international force, the sort with teeth, or Israel will never agree.


Mark, I think that your posts above fails to consider the (also above] important point made by Brownbear

Should Israel concede a military advantage and then be attacked from it, that's any peaceful resolution lost, for our lifetime.
mark

Jonnyboy wrote:
Quote:
Ony return to insecure borders would have to be acompanied by the deployment some sort of international force, the sort with teeth, or Israel will never agree.


Mark, I think that your posts above fails to consider the (also above] important point made by Brownbear

Should Israel concede a military advantage and then be attacked from it, that's any peaceful resolution lost, for our lifetime.


The Palestinians i know would welcome such an international force. They keep asking why don't the americans help. It is bizarrre that so many americans think the palestinians are anti-american but so many palestians see america as their hope and possible saviour .

Yes there are anti western groups active among the palestinians - but they are not the whole story.

There is a need to undertand that the arab world is much less united and agreed than is say europe.
It is also important to remember a significant number of arab palestinians are not muslm but they also include christian and druze as well as secular types and even some arab speaking jews who feel more comfortable with palestinians than the incoming european and Russian israeli'swho speak a strange Hebrew.

The palestinians are not yet a nation - they have been ruled by the turks the british and the Israelis. They never got a chance at democracy (they aint allowed to vote in the Israeli elections though the Israeli governmetn effectively makes every important decision regarding the areas they live in. - and the Palestinian authority has no authority!

i know best the palestinian christian minority - who are discriminated against in many ways. They believe they have been in the land and are descendents of the first Galileans that folowed Jesus. They are no longer Jews and arab speaking and intermarried. but certainly children of the land. I also know some armenians in Jerusalem who feel similarly beleagered.

While Israel has a right to exist - I think the civilised world has a right to ask of Israel to excercise respect for those who lived in the land before the state of Israel was formed - that include the Israeli Arabs who are citizens of the state of Israel - but also those Arabs in the territories they occupy.
Brownbear

mark wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
On the matter of the original boundaries, it should be noted that from a defensive point of view they leave Israel in a very insecure position. It ought to further be remembered that the reason that the West Bank and Golan Heights were taken was that the Syrians used the Heights to site artillery which they would periodically use to shell Israeli towns. Ony return to insecure borders would have to be acompanied by the deployment some sort of international force, the sort with teeth, or Israel will never agree.

I think they would be right not to agree to such military folly.



but that is a crazy argument!
Because the same applies the other way


No it doesn't. Israel holding the Heights and West Bank does not imperil Syrian and Jordanian security in the same way that Syria and Jordan using the area as a jumping-off point imperils Israel's.

This is the original UN partition plan - does this look as if it could be easily defended? The Arab states thought not, attacked, and lost by a whisker, due largely to the courage and determination of the Israelis. Note the large areas of Palestinian territory in the former British Mandate. Apparently this was too little for the Arab states and the Palestinians - who thoroughly supported the invasion, which was, as the Secretary General of the Arab League stated at the time, "a war of extermination".



This is how it looked after they'd attacked and lost.



And in the Six-day war Israel took the Sinai, West Bank and Golan Heights - it's worth noting that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq had all mobilised and were advancing on Israel at the time the Israelis struck, and Egypt had ordered the UN peace force out of the Sinai.

Map of the battle:



The borders after the war:



Later, Israel handed the Sinai back to Egypt as part of a peace deal.
Brownbear

Blue Peter wrote:
Brownbear wrote:



Israeli retaliation is the chief engine which turns public opinion against them, and which enshrines the terrorists as noble armed defenders rather than criminal brutes. I'd bet a pound against a pinch of poo that the great mass of ordianary Palestinians just want to make some sort of deal, live their lives and be reasonable. Without Israeli responses being provoked so often, they might be able to do that.


How do you determine that it is Palestinian provocation and Israeli retaliation rather than the other way round?


Peter.


Because each attack enhances the reputation of the terrorists in their struggle for power, and each retaliation provides more fuel for opponents of Israel. Cui Bono?
Behemoth

While the military and political histroy is important to the context, the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons and can lay waste to the region ('go mad dog' was the phrase used by the Israelies to Colin Powell when Bush asked him to report to him on the situation when taking office), it does render the need to occupy the golan heights redundant. Israel also has technical and air supremacy in the immediate area. It was the ground troops who failed in the recent attack on Lebanon.
Brownbear

Behemoth wrote:
While the military and political histroy is important to the context, the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons and can lay waste to the region ('go mad dog' was the phrase used by the Israelies to Colin Powell when Bush asked him to report to him on the situation when taking office), it does render the need to occupy the golan heights redundant.


Are you suggesting that it would be a good thing if Israel had a policy of using nuclear weapons in response to a border threat?


Behemoth wrote:
It was the ground troops who failed in the recent attack on Lebanon.


Indeed they did. They were, as you point out, perfectly capable of laying waste all before them, depopulating the entire area by driving out the entire population, enemy and civilian alike. Yet they did not, even though by concentrating on 'military' targets and trying to minimise civilian casualties, they were undone. Not exactly ethnic cleansing, then, was it?

When confronted with an ememy of the sort of individuals who set up rocket launchers or light artillery in residential areas (to either prevent a retaliatory strike or to ensure maximum civilian casualties if there is a response, and so generate lots of negative publicity for Israel), the Israelis withdrew.
MarkS

I suppose its irrelevant that Israeli ministers have said that the real reason they want the golan is for the farmland?
Brownbear

MarkS wrote:
I suppose its irrelevant that Israeli ministers have said that the real reason they want the golan is for the farmland?


Which ones, and when? You really can't make statements like that without offering any references. Speaker, date and context, please.
Behemoth

Brownbear wrote:
Are you suggesting that it would be a good thing if Israel had a policy of using nuclear weapons in response to a border threat?


No. but it begs the question of why they have them and what their affect has been. If a military attack on your territory is worthy of military occupation of part of another state to maintain security, that nation has the right to attack you and throw you out, to defend its borders. Doesn't it? Confused My geography is a bit rusty but don't the Golan heights form the high ground to the west of the Jordan valley and as such put all movements South of Damascus to Jordan under observations and artillery range? The Syrians have made no overt military attack to retake Golan for a long time now. I wonder if the destruction of Damascus weighs on their mind and the possibility of Israel going "Mad Dog".

Brownbear wrote:
Not exactly ethnic cleansing, then, was it?.


No, and I never said it was.
Brownbear

Behemoth wrote:
My geography is a bit rusty but don't the Golan heights form the high ground to the west of the Jordan valley and as such put all movements South of Damascus to Jordan under observations and artillery range? The Syrians have made no overt military attack to retake Golan for a long time now. I wonder if the destruction of Damascus weighs on their mind and the possibility of Israel going "Mad Dog".


I think you're confusing nuclear and conventional strategies here. Israel doesn't need the Golan to open a can of instant sunshine over Damascus. The IDF can deliver them via air, possibly by other means too (sub-launched cruise missiles).

The purpose of their holding nuclear weapons is twofold - firstly to deter WMD attacks (remember Saddam's scuds? He never armed them with chemical or biological warheads against Israel, knowing what the response would be). Secondly, it is to deter other states from putting it in the position that it would have nothing to lose by going nuclear. The point of nuclear weapons is that they are only doing their job if you don't have to use them. By having a strong conventional defence, they give themselves flexibility in response to threats, assaults and incursions.

Had they wanted an excuse to nuke the Arabs, they had the perfect one in the Yom Kippur War, when they came within an ace of defeat, but still didn't engage with nuclear munitions.
jema

mark wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
How do you determine that it is Palestinian provocation and Israeli retaliation rather than the other way round?Peter.


If they both stopped it would help. However a lot of people wouldn't know what to do with themselves. If defines who they are and they are scared od doing something different.


I think you can't just talk about Palestinians and Israelis.

Most Palestinians want peace - likewise most Israelis

but their are those who want to wipe out the other on both sides

the majority of moderate palestinians want some land back (roll back to the UN agreed boundaries) and freedom of movement so they can get jobs and earn a crust. They want the right to vote - and an end to encroachment They want their relatives living abroad to be allowed to return to visit or even settle near them. They want open borders so they can participate in international trade and benefit from tourism

Moderate Israelis want to live in peace and to catch a bus knowing there won't be a suicide bomber.
There wil be no solution until all sides and factions, including the extremists we don't like, are included in talks. You can't make peace if their is no diplomacy


Indeed that is how I read things.

Though I would emphasize that the Palestinians do want boundaries that do not leave them economically subject to the whims of Israel.
Brownbear

jema wrote:

Though I would emphasize that the Palestinians do want boundaries that do not leave them economically subject to the whims of Israel.


I doubt Israel is acting as it does on a whim.
Grimnir

Armchair politics is all very well but it doesn't solve the problems, only reiterates them. What I find most ironic about this entire thread is one of the posters signature quotes, to whit:
Quote:
For every difficult and complex question there is an answer that is simple,
easily understood - and wrong ! - H.L. Mencken

As generalisations go, it is probably more true than most.
Brownbear

Grimnir wrote:
Armchair politics is all very well but it doesn't solve the problems


The initial purpose of the thread was to hurl insults at Israel, rather than to discuss a fair and equitable resolution to the problems there.
Grimnir

Perhaps, but keeping this argument going for 5 pages does nothing but keep the thread in circulation. Standard advice on all forums I'm on is that if you feel a post is trolling, don't feed the troll!

Please note that I have not expressed an opinion on this matter either way and nor will I. I am in fact attempting to give each side an 'out', if they wish to end the argument.
mark

Brownbear

I can't argue with all your miltary strategy.

But can you perhaps turn it to another perspective

Please remember that the Arab Israeli war was not initiated by the Palestinians but by neighbouring Arab states. (who incidentally do not always treat the Palestinian refugees within their border well ) - and who do not speak for Palestinians

Some of those "Arab" states such as Egypt and Jordan also have suffered massive political re-allignment since the war. We no longer need to defend ourlef in the same way against Germany and Italy as we once did and indeed they are now our allies. The situation in the middle East is changing as globalisation has had its impact.

So my questions is now "How do the Palestinians defend themselves? How do they secure their borders?"

what would you advice to them be to ensure they have a safe and secure life and that the seizure of their lands and and the threats to their economic livelihood are ended (other than just trusting Israel, which would be madness when it still has certain factions bent on appropriating all Paestinian lands for Jewish use )

Al Palestinians believe it is unnacceptable that Israel controls all their borders - and can mount incursions at will (remember that in recent years most of the civilian casualties have been Palestinian)

most want to negotiate a peaceful solution to the is unacceptable situation - a minority will seek to use terrorist means to protest it!

So Brownbear - i accept all your arguments about Israeli security - but how can the Palestinians win their's

PS In case any one gets me wrong I am not anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. I have friends in both communities.
I am ready at a moments notice to say denounce terorrism in all its forms.
but peace and prosperity will only come with a settlement that wins security for both communities!
Brownbear

Grimnir wrote:
Perhaps, but keeping this argument going for 5 pages does nothing but keep the thread in circulation. Standard advice on all forums I'm on is that if you feel a post is trolling, don't feed the troll!

Please note that I have not expressed an opinion on this matter either way and nor will I. I am in fact attempting to give each side an 'out', if they wish to end the argument.


I didn't think the thread was a troll. I thought it was lazy, ignorant, ill-intentioned, unpleasant, indicative of ingrained prejudice and a wilful misinterpretation of recorded history.

But not a troll.
mark

Can i say too that i don't really like the title of this thread which is rather inflammatory.

Isarel as all new nations will celebrate its birth - (i ts a bit harder for nations like ours which sort of evolved or emerged from the slime LOL)

and its critics will use the occasions to draw attention its worse policies.

so would not want to stifle the cut and thrust of debate - maybe somethign less inflammatory about a delicate situation would have been wiser

mark
Brownbear

mark wrote:

So Brownbear - i accept all your arguments about Israeli security - but how can the Palestinians win their's


I can't tell them what to do, or say that one thing or another would be bound to work. But if I were a Palestinian this is what I'd want.

First, a functioning political apparatus. That means an international force to disarm all the factions and provide internal security for a period of time. All the factions, not diviseively playing one off against the other. Any that would not disarm I would want crushed without scruple.

Then I would want to start again from the bottom, building a functioning democracy in stages. Firstly to administer civil organisation. Basics like water and sanitation. Then expand it until it takes over internal security on a non-sectarian basis, leaning heavily on the international force at first. Any attempts to re-establish armed political groups to be crushed.

After the period of martial law, a start to negotiations from a united front. A strong Palestinian entity could deliver on offers of security. When their ability to keep order was established, I would want to see the West Bank and Gaza handed over to Palestinian control, with the interantional force screening between West Bank and Jordan, and between Israel and West Bank.

An Extraterritorial Railway linking Gaza and the West Bank. Removal of Israeli settlers (they drove theor own people out of Gaza, they'd do it in the West Bank if they trusted the Palestinians to keep their side of the deal).
Bernie66

I feel that it may be time to let this one go, it is in danger of degenerating into a "no win" for anyone position which usually ends in discord.
Please.
Brownbear

Bernie66 wrote:
I feel that it may be time to let this one go, it is in danger of degenerating into a "no win" for anyone position which usually ends in discord.
Please.


I don't know, it strikes me that people are just starting to see the pointlessness of finger-pointing and discuss the issue constructively. As far as I'm aware the discussion contravenes no forum guidelines.
MarkS

Brownbear wrote:
Grimnir wrote:
Armchair politics is all very well but it doesn't solve the problems


The initial purpose of the thread was to hurl insults at Israel, rather than to discuss a fair and equitable resolution to the problems there.


Now that is offensive.

The purpose of the thread was to raise an inconsistency in the way that certain behaviour is regarded depending on whether the state is one of 'us' or one of 'them'.

The west has well and truly screwed up the middle east. The creation of a set of artificial states with friendly dictators was never going to produce a peaceful region. The military support that the west provides keeps huge numbers of people in subjugation to corrupt and unpleasant regimes.

Israel gets away with murder in its behaviour with very very little criticism in the west.

There are regular mini holocausts around the world but only some get publicity. The armenians were just about wiped out by the turks. Hama was obliterated in Syria. Algeria has had continual nasty civil wars since 1960. Africa?
And If the bbc was suddenly full of how wonderful the modern Turkish state was, and went on about the peaceful years since the armenians were exterminated I'd say something about that as well.
Brownbear

MarkS wrote:
Brownbear wrote:
Grimnir wrote:
Armchair politics is all very well but it doesn't solve the problems


The initial purpose of the thread was to hurl insults at Israel, rather than to discuss a fair and equitable resolution to the problems there.


Now that is offensive.

The purpose of the thread was to raise an inconsistency in the way that certain behaviour is regarded depending on whether the state is one of 'us' or one of 'them'.


And how does 'sixty years of ethnic cleansing' translate into 'is the west inconsistent?'
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:

And how does 'sixty years of ethnic cleansing' translate into 'is the west inconsistent?'


Because elsewhere, ethnic cleansing is condemned. Our Prime Minister does not normally praise such actions:

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page15457.asp

Quote:

Can I tell you from the bottom of my heart what an honour and what a privilege it is to be here this evening at the celebration of one of the greatest achievements of the 20th Century. The realisation of a dream that was first hoped for and prayed for thousands of years ago, was planned for by generations of visionaries and was built in sacrifice and suffering and struggle, the declaration of 1948 of the State of Israel.




Peter.
Brownbear

Blue Peter wrote:
Brownbear wrote:

And how does 'sixty years of ethnic cleansing' translate into 'is the west inconsistent?'


Because elsewhere, ethnic cleansing is condemned. Our Prime Minister does not normally praise such actions:

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page15457.asp

Quote:

Can I tell you from the bottom of my heart what an honour and what a privilege it is to be here this evening at the celebration of one of the greatest achievements of the 20th Century. The realisation of a dream that was first hoped for and prayed for thousands of years ago, was planned for by generations of visionaries and was built in sacrifice and suffering and struggle, the declaration of 1948 of the State of Israel.




Peter.


And you maintain that the existence of Israel is just an exercise in ethnic cleansing then, do you? Just that and nothing more? Yes?
Blue Peter

Brownbear wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
Brownbear wrote:

And how does 'sixty years of ethnic cleansing' translate into 'is the west inconsistent?'


Because elsewhere, ethnic cleansing is condemned. Our Prime Minister does not normally praise such actions:

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page15457.asp

Quote:

Can I tell you from the bottom of my heart what an honour and what a privilege it is to be here this evening at the celebration of one of the greatest achievements of the 20th Century. The realisation of a dream that was first hoped for and prayed for thousands of years ago, was planned for by generations of visionaries and was built in sacrifice and suffering and struggle, the declaration of 1948 of the State of Israel.




Peter.


And you maintain that the existence of Israel is just an exercise in ethnic cleansing then, do you? Just that and nothing more? Yes?


No of course not. However, Israel is defined as a Jewish state. It is expanding in contravention of international law by expropriating land which belongs to others. It maintains an apartheid system:

Quote:

The situation in Israel today is that the Arab citizens of Israel are treated differently. They do suffer from a regime of discrimination in terms of Israel being portrayed as a democracy. There are certain laws passed by the Israeli Knesset that are discriminatory. There are barriers to owning land, the Israeli Land Authority administers the situation in a discriminatory way—social benefits in the society are often connected to military service.

On a less formal level, budgets are being delivered to health, education, and school systems in an unfair way. The school system is segregated. There are quotas for Palestinians for professional programs. Even less obvious is the institutional duress placed on Arab citizens. It's important to remember that leaders of Zionist parties have basically agreed that the Arab citizens of Israel can only be a small minority. If they get larger, they represent a demographic challenge to the Israeli state, which is being portrayed as an existential threat.



http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/3112.cfm

Because Israel insists upon being a Jewish state it puts itself in a position of never-ending conflict with non-Jews living within its borders and non-Jews living without - they are seen as an "existential threat". Until that changes, there will be no peace,


Peter.
Erikht

I think this is fun.

Europeans, you got to love their resilience. Always ready to make a new argument for why their favourite past time is morally o.k..

First we had Christianity. And everybody that was not Christians had the wrong religion, and needed to be baptized/burned/thrown out/repressed and taxed. Several groups suffered from this, but since only one group actually had the gall to live among those with the correct faith, they suffered more than most.

Then Christianity was replaced by a jolly mixture of Marxism, Darwinism and Nationalism. And suddenly, everybody that was not (purebred)European had to be naturalized/burned(but, since we live in modern times, gassed first. More humane that way)/thrown out/repressed and taxed (sometimes all of these, with a few years between). Again, several groups suffered from this, but only one of them (they really should have learned from past experiences) had the gall to live among real humans, and so they suffered more than most.

The Europeans suddenly found that violence was not The Way (too many of them died in the first half of the 20th century), so they became Humanists instead. And since they were Europeans, and really, really couldn't help themselves, they decided to make a competition about it. From now on, the measure of your humanity should no longer be your religion (Better be Christian, Hymie!), nor should it be race (The Blonder the Better), it should now be measured according to how humane you were. Several countries were less humane that the Europeans (as long as they stay at home, that is. Europeans Abroad can still kick around. They call themselves "The UN", but call a rose by another name....), But most of them were big and intimidating. And even if they killed people (sometimes by the million), they quite often had political systems that even the most humane Europeans (quite often the most humane Europeans, actually) would like to associate themselves with. Pol this and Pot that, if you take my drift. But there was one country that did not have a political system the lefties felt they had to support, and besides, they were old friends.

So among the murderers of millions, they were singled out as The Great Enemy (does this sound familiar?), and has suffered more than most (Well, not really. Now these Jesus-killing untermensch got weapons and can say "F**k you too." How... how.... Inhumane), or at least their relatives and brethren in faith that is still STUPID enough to believe that they can find peace among the Europeans, has to listen to every insult, every hint, every desperate attempt to hurt. I mean, do you people really know what a genocide is? As Brits you have committed a few, no question about that, but have you felt it on your bodies? Have you ever had a genocide cut into your cultural flesh like a second covenant? Do you know how it is never to be able to find any information about your family older than 100 years old, because the memory of your people were to be extinguished from the face of the earth and the memories of men? Throw me out of my country any day (All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again), as long as I can go to another one, but don't talk to me about genocides in that flippant way, boys.

I fear for the future. The new measure on humanity seems to be Freedom. It is almost cried in the streets these days, and most fascistoid movie has it in abundance (most of them with Mel Gibson for some reason. Then he is being tortured to death, for our sins it seems), as well as the political rhetoric of Europe and her offshoot. I just wonder how you-know-who will be hit by this one. But rest assured, they will. Because few people know how to hold a grudge like Europe. In the end, the unworthy will once again suffer.

Does this mean that the Palestinians has no right to a country of they own, as well as peace and the possibility of a future for their children? Off course not. But that is another question entirely, and not one that has really been raised in this thread. This thread is good ol' well-pissing, and nothing else.
tahir

Erik, I appreciate the strength and resilience of the Jewish people. I have a deep admiration for them, the way that they've (despite the pogroms and persecutions) have managed to have such a deep effect on the world as it is today, philosophically, financially and culturally.

I agree with a lot of what you've said, BUT are you saying that Israel is blameless in this conflict? Is this the best we should expect from a people who everybody (bar the most loony of loonies) knows have suffered more than anyone should? What bearing do the (European) anti semites have on how todays Palestinians should view Israel as a political/theological construct?

I can't say I'm the most intellectually gifted person in the world so some of what I've said may not make the best sense , all I know is that at the age of 10 I visited Pakistan for the first time, I saw discrimination against Christians based on nothing more than their faith, I instinctively knew this was wrong. To me (regardless of my own faith background) the Israeli government has done some things so brutally and unjustly that they feel just as wrong to me, unfortunately they impact more people and in a more extreme way.

I hope one day there'll be peace in the region and I hope it'll be in a mixed faith mutually respectful nation, I don't give a shit what it's called as long as it respects all its citizens.

Is this achievable? Well who thought you'd ever see Paisley sitting next to Adams? If that's possible then we have to have hope that some day something similar will happen in the holy lan