| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 20:59 - Jul 28 with 1956 views | kysersosaqpr |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 20:48 - Jul 28 by dubaistu |
It's "you're" not 'your" prince.
For what it's worth, I have no time for illegal occupation of Palestine. You'd also be fooling yourself if you thought a football forum was going to get the bottom of this issue, which will continue to go on long after you and I start pushing up the daises.
Chill out and watch Usual Suspects again, seek inspiration there my child
x |
Trying to think something more original than condescending tw-t, but I will have a look at Usual Suspects again. |  |
| The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. |
|  |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:20 - Jul 28 with 1907 views | RangersAreBack |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 13:18 - Jul 28 by Hunterhoop |
Not ignoring that at all. The area, and Jerusalem in particular, is religiously significant for both Jewish and Muslim people. I absolutely appreciate the Jewish "religious" claim to occupancy of the land from thousands of years earlier.
I was merely correcting your false accusation that THIS "conflict" was caused by the Arabs launchin a war in 1948. It wasn't. It was caused by the partition plan being created and implemented in 1948 due to the British deciding to pull out due to the continued zionist terrorist acts in the region against civilians (which the British, as the occupying force, had a duty to defend) and against British soldiers. Without the zionist terrorist movement in 1944-1947, the British wouldn't have pulled out of the region in 1948 and there wouldn't have been such a hastily arranged Partition Plan. In turn there wouldn't have been the conflict as it has developed.
Jewish and Arab people were living together in Palestine for years before 1948, not quite "in harmony" but at least in some form of stable state.
The need for a formal state of Israel, I get. After WWII, it was necessary, but rather than do it properly, Zionist terrorists forced the withdrawal of the British resulting in a hastily and badly devised partition plan to make the state of Israel happen. That's the root cause of the current conflict: zionist terrorists, which is ironic really given Palestinians are protrayed as the terrorists in the mass media in the simplified story of the conflict.
You're right that Hamas taking control of the West Bank and Gaza after the PLO was a disaster for Palestinian civilians and the peace process.
But nowadays we're not talking about two balanced states fighting a war, we're talking about:
a) one of the most powerful military nations outside the big 3, a fully fledged member of the international community and a very developed country (economy, living standards, etc)
against
b) a terrorist organisation based in a heavily civilian area, where most people live below the poverty line, there is no formal developed "state", people's freedom of movement is controlled by a foreign power, living conditions are appalling and the average age of civilians is 17.
Israel, as a developed nation in the world and important member of the international community MUST take the higher ground and responsible approach. The defence of "what would you do if people kept sending rockets over the border", is ridiculous. Firstly, they have one of the most develop defence systems in the world meaning hardly any rockets actually reach the ground. They get shot out of the sky. Secondly, those that do are fired with such primitive systems, they very very very rarely hit a target, almost all that do reach the ground fall on waste land.
Finally, since the 1993 Peace Accords, Israel, against their word and the UN's wishes, has continued to build settlements in areas designated for "Palestinians". Don't quote me, as I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it to be over 3,000 different settlements since then in areas in the West Bank (predominantly) that they agreed, with international approval, should be for "Palestinians". What's the defence in that? It's not "defence from attack", it's not reclaiming land they were owed under a previous international agreement, it has no defence.
For both these two approaches Jewish people should be ashamed of their governments.
And that's also a key point. The issue isn't "Arab/Jew". The issue is Zionism, very different from Judaism, and Palestinian Arabs, and also the terrorists of Hamas.
My complete sympathy lies with the Palestinian Arabs who are not part of Hamas but have been completely let down by international powers for decades, and continue to be. Israel (not Jews) should have been held to account for their actions against those Palestinian Arab civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza. |
The Jewish claim to the land is not purely religious; they lived there as far back as 3000 years ago. The Rashidun Caliphate (Muslims) first laid siege and occupied Jerusalem in 637 AD. Jerusalem remained under Muslim occupation for 400 years until the Crusaders captured it in 1099 during the First Crusade. Ironically Jews and Muslims fought side-by-side to defend the city. Jerusalem was laid siege upon again in 1187 and surrendered to Saladin, a Muslim of Kurdish origin and the first Sultan of Egypt and Syria.
Now you may place the start of conflict in the region at the door of the 1948 partition but history says otherwise. I do agree, however, that Hamas is piggy-backing the problems and gambling Palestinian lives in pursuit of their agenda. Both Hamas and Israel should be held to account for what's currently happening in Gaza. [Post edited 28 Jul 2014 21:32]
|  | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:36 - Jul 28 with 1874 views | Hunterhoop |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:20 - Jul 28 by RangersAreBack |
The Jewish claim to the land is not purely religious; they lived there as far back as 3000 years ago. The Rashidun Caliphate (Muslims) first laid siege and occupied Jerusalem in 637 AD. Jerusalem remained under Muslim occupation for 400 years until the Crusaders captured it in 1099 during the First Crusade. Ironically Jews and Muslims fought side-by-side to defend the city. Jerusalem was laid siege upon again in 1187 and surrendered to Saladin, a Muslim of Kurdish origin and the first Sultan of Egypt and Syria.
Now you may place the start of conflict in the region at the door of the 1948 partition but history says otherwise. I do agree, however, that Hamas is piggy-backing the problems and gambling Palestinian lives in pursuit of their agenda. Both Hamas and Israel should be held to account for what's currently happening in Gaza. [Post edited 28 Jul 2014 21:32]
|
A) that's not what you were arguing earlier when you said "the Arabs started the conflict", hence my factual rebuttals
and,
B) that line if argument is silly. I know full well about it, but take it to it's nihilistic conclusion and we'll need to go back to the start of time to determine the "cause".
If you applied the same logic to everything else, we'd be saying the root cause of everything was when Man was born and we all lived in caves.
Jews and Arabs lived in relative harmony in the secular state of Palestine for years prior to 1944-47, when the Zionist movement (which only began in the late 19th century as a movement) really gathered pace and turned to terrorist activities to seek a quickened creation of Jewish state after the atrocities of the Nazis.
It was at that point that "the conflict" as we know it and as is relevant for today's discussion began.
I know my facts.
Also I think all your talk of historical right to the land fails to understand and appreciate the distinction between Judaism, as a religion, and Zionist as a fundamentalist nationalistic movement.
We're not going to agree, clearly, but I do have a decent understanding of the "facts" as you like to put it. [Post edited 28 Jul 2014 21:43]
|  | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:37 - Jul 28 with 1872 views | kropotkin41 |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:20 - Jul 28 by RangersAreBack |
The Jewish claim to the land is not purely religious; they lived there as far back as 3000 years ago. The Rashidun Caliphate (Muslims) first laid siege and occupied Jerusalem in 637 AD. Jerusalem remained under Muslim occupation for 400 years until the Crusaders captured it in 1099 during the First Crusade. Ironically Jews and Muslims fought side-by-side to defend the city. Jerusalem was laid siege upon again in 1187 and surrendered to Saladin, a Muslim of Kurdish origin and the first Sultan of Egypt and Syria.
Now you may place the start of conflict in the region at the door of the 1948 partition but history says otherwise. I do agree, however, that Hamas is piggy-backing the problems and gambling Palestinian lives in pursuit of their agenda. Both Hamas and Israel should be held to account for what's currently happening in Gaza. [Post edited 28 Jul 2014 21:32]
|
That's an interesting perspective, but if you were to accept a Jewish claim to the whole of the land that Zionists envisage as greater Israel on the grounds that Jews have lived there for a long time, you might consider handing London back to the Welsh as their ancestors were certainly the occupants of Britannia before us scruffy Saxons turned up.
It's jolly nice that you know your history of the Middle East, I think that's great, but I'm afraid it's pretty irrelevant except as a means to explaining the ideology of rabid Zionists. |  |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:42 - Jul 28 with 1860 views | Hunterhoop |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:37 - Jul 28 by kropotkin41 |
That's an interesting perspective, but if you were to accept a Jewish claim to the whole of the land that Zionists envisage as greater Israel on the grounds that Jews have lived there for a long time, you might consider handing London back to the Welsh as their ancestors were certainly the occupants of Britannia before us scruffy Saxons turned up.
It's jolly nice that you know your history of the Middle East, I think that's great, but I'm afraid it's pretty irrelevant except as a means to explaining the ideology of rabid Zionists. |
Better put than I could. | | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 22:05 - Jul 28 with 1821 views | MrSheen |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 13:18 - Jul 28 by Hunterhoop |
Not ignoring that at all. The area, and Jerusalem in particular, is religiously significant for both Jewish and Muslim people. I absolutely appreciate the Jewish "religious" claim to occupancy of the land from thousands of years earlier.
I was merely correcting your false accusation that THIS "conflict" was caused by the Arabs launchin a war in 1948. It wasn't. It was caused by the partition plan being created and implemented in 1948 due to the British deciding to pull out due to the continued zionist terrorist acts in the region against civilians (which the British, as the occupying force, had a duty to defend) and against British soldiers. Without the zionist terrorist movement in 1944-1947, the British wouldn't have pulled out of the region in 1948 and there wouldn't have been such a hastily arranged Partition Plan. In turn there wouldn't have been the conflict as it has developed.
Jewish and Arab people were living together in Palestine for years before 1948, not quite "in harmony" but at least in some form of stable state.
The need for a formal state of Israel, I get. After WWII, it was necessary, but rather than do it properly, Zionist terrorists forced the withdrawal of the British resulting in a hastily and badly devised partition plan to make the state of Israel happen. That's the root cause of the current conflict: zionist terrorists, which is ironic really given Palestinians are protrayed as the terrorists in the mass media in the simplified story of the conflict.
You're right that Hamas taking control of the West Bank and Gaza after the PLO was a disaster for Palestinian civilians and the peace process.
But nowadays we're not talking about two balanced states fighting a war, we're talking about:
a) one of the most powerful military nations outside the big 3, a fully fledged member of the international community and a very developed country (economy, living standards, etc)
against
b) a terrorist organisation based in a heavily civilian area, where most people live below the poverty line, there is no formal developed "state", people's freedom of movement is controlled by a foreign power, living conditions are appalling and the average age of civilians is 17.
Israel, as a developed nation in the world and important member of the international community MUST take the higher ground and responsible approach. The defence of "what would you do if people kept sending rockets over the border", is ridiculous. Firstly, they have one of the most develop defence systems in the world meaning hardly any rockets actually reach the ground. They get shot out of the sky. Secondly, those that do are fired with such primitive systems, they very very very rarely hit a target, almost all that do reach the ground fall on waste land.
Finally, since the 1993 Peace Accords, Israel, against their word and the UN's wishes, has continued to build settlements in areas designated for "Palestinians". Don't quote me, as I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it to be over 3,000 different settlements since then in areas in the West Bank (predominantly) that they agreed, with international approval, should be for "Palestinians". What's the defence in that? It's not "defence from attack", it's not reclaiming land they were owed under a previous international agreement, it has no defence.
For both these two approaches Jewish people should be ashamed of their governments.
And that's also a key point. The issue isn't "Arab/Jew". The issue is Zionism, very different from Judaism, and Palestinian Arabs, and also the terrorists of Hamas.
My complete sympathy lies with the Palestinian Arabs who are not part of Hamas but have been completely let down by international powers for decades, and continue to be. Israel (not Jews) should have been held to account for their actions against those Palestinian Arab civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza. |
You've made a well argued and informative post, but there are a few things I'm puzzled by. The first responsibility of a state is to protect its citizens from attack. It can't pretend that the neighbours are harmlessly letting off steam by firing rockets their way, just because most of them are shot down or fall to ground in the middle of nowhere. They are fired to kill, and their range, payload and sophistication is increasing. Can you give an example of any other state that has ignored such assaults? In almost every case, it's not that the rockets are being fired by a terrorist group that the host government is trying unsuccessfully to contain. The rockets have been fired by Hamas fighters, and Hamas is the government, who control the import of war materials, such as they are, into its territory. Is there a threshold of mortality and danger above which Israel is permitted to retaliate like any other country?
Secondly, you wrote:
For both these two approaches Jewish people should be ashamed of their governments.
Did you mean to write Israeli? If you really meant to write Jewish, you are implying the Jews of Buenos Aires, Stockholm and Melbourne recognise the Israeli government as THEIRS, though they have no vote and carry a different passport. Hmmmmm. You wouldn't expect Muslims in Britain to carry any responsibility for the actions of the Saudi government, or Socialists in Germany for what might be going wrong in Venezuela. What's the difference with overseas Jews and Israel?
Even closer to home than Gaza, an unresolved conflict with many similar features to that in Palestine is entering its 40th year. An exhausted colonial power walked away from an unwanted possession, but rather than allowing its inhabitants' political representatives to take power, it connived at its take-over by another country with an historic claim but little current connection. Military force and a wave of settlement followed, driving the indigenous government and its supporters to the fringes. They currently have the remotest, poorest 20% of the land, and most now live in UN camps over the border. There is even a security wall, and a succession of failed international attempts at mediation and arbitration. You can read about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara
Yet no-one calls for sanctions or a boycott of Morocco, or suggests that Adel Taarabt shouldn't be allowed to wear our shirt. Why does Israel attract such attention, when other evils are ignored? I am not blind to historic and current wrongdoing of Israel, but I don't see them as the exceptional evildoer that others present them as, under these categories:
Category 1- They are Satanic. Everything they do is wrong, and everything they say is a lie. And none of them turned up for work at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The less said the better.
Category 2 - they are America's ally, thus guilty by association at least. I used to be a member of the tea-towel tendency myself at college in the early 1980s, disgusted at the crimes of Israel and South Africa, but with nothing to say about what was happening in Syria and Zimbabwe, beyond vaguely sensing that the victims had it coming. Not that terrible things weren't happening in South Africa and in the Israel's conflicts.
Category 3 - people who are particularly outraged that a democracy should behave with such brutality, but shrug their shoulders when Sri Lanka does worse in its Tamil conflict, or Syria in its civil war, or China in Tibet. Unfortunately, Israel's democracy is adding to the problem, as their system gives disproportionate influence to the lunatic fringe, and because the calls for vengeance are harder to resist than would be the case in a dictatorship...hence for example the lack of pressure on Egypt's government to relieve Gaza, from home or abroad.
Sorry for the length of this. I want to understand how other people feel about this because I have changed my own views so much over the years and I expect I will again. i also don't think that someone who thinks differently is intellectually or morally deficient - ideas exist to be discussed and challenged. For what it's worth, I think Israel's actions are storing up even bigger conflict into the future, and they won't always win. At the same time, I can understand why they don't place any faith in promises of multinational support if they disarm and withdraw, or believe that their opponents will be satisfied with that. A longer-term settlement requires sacrifice on both sides, and I don't see the will on either side. In part, this is because of the hardening given to attitudes by religion on both sides, augmented on the Hamas side by their enthusiastic attitude towards martyrdom. I'd like to be more optimistic, but there you go... |  | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 23:34 - Jul 28 with 1774 views | THEBUSH |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 20:25 - Jul 28 by RangersAreBack |
Actually if you read my earlier posts I clearly stated that the killing is wrong and a diplomatic solution is required. However the only way to reach this solution is to separate Hamas from the equation, understand the history of the region and listen to both sides of the story. |
While Israel control the media and politics of the USA and the UK, there can be no peace talks, until they obliterate Gaza.
Israel don't give a toss about us or anyone else, they only care about themselves.
The sooner the USA leaves Israel to fight their own battles, the better.
Cameron and Blair have both accepted money from the Jewish lobby in the UK, it's about time they came clean about it, some hopes. [Post edited 28 Jul 2014 23:36]
|  | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 23:39 - Jul 28 with 1769 views | Hunterhoop |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 22:05 - Jul 28 by MrSheen |
You've made a well argued and informative post, but there are a few things I'm puzzled by. The first responsibility of a state is to protect its citizens from attack. It can't pretend that the neighbours are harmlessly letting off steam by firing rockets their way, just because most of them are shot down or fall to ground in the middle of nowhere. They are fired to kill, and their range, payload and sophistication is increasing. Can you give an example of any other state that has ignored such assaults? In almost every case, it's not that the rockets are being fired by a terrorist group that the host government is trying unsuccessfully to contain. The rockets have been fired by Hamas fighters, and Hamas is the government, who control the import of war materials, such as they are, into its territory. Is there a threshold of mortality and danger above which Israel is permitted to retaliate like any other country?
Secondly, you wrote:
For both these two approaches Jewish people should be ashamed of their governments.
Did you mean to write Israeli? If you really meant to write Jewish, you are implying the Jews of Buenos Aires, Stockholm and Melbourne recognise the Israeli government as THEIRS, though they have no vote and carry a different passport. Hmmmmm. You wouldn't expect Muslims in Britain to carry any responsibility for the actions of the Saudi government, or Socialists in Germany for what might be going wrong in Venezuela. What's the difference with overseas Jews and Israel?
Even closer to home than Gaza, an unresolved conflict with many similar features to that in Palestine is entering its 40th year. An exhausted colonial power walked away from an unwanted possession, but rather than allowing its inhabitants' political representatives to take power, it connived at its take-over by another country with an historic claim but little current connection. Military force and a wave of settlement followed, driving the indigenous government and its supporters to the fringes. They currently have the remotest, poorest 20% of the land, and most now live in UN camps over the border. There is even a security wall, and a succession of failed international attempts at mediation and arbitration. You can read about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara
Yet no-one calls for sanctions or a boycott of Morocco, or suggests that Adel Taarabt shouldn't be allowed to wear our shirt. Why does Israel attract such attention, when other evils are ignored? I am not blind to historic and current wrongdoing of Israel, but I don't see them as the exceptional evildoer that others present them as, under these categories:
Category 1- They are Satanic. Everything they do is wrong, and everything they say is a lie. And none of them turned up for work at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The less said the better.
Category 2 - they are America's ally, thus guilty by association at least. I used to be a member of the tea-towel tendency myself at college in the early 1980s, disgusted at the crimes of Israel and South Africa, but with nothing to say about what was happening in Syria and Zimbabwe, beyond vaguely sensing that the victims had it coming. Not that terrible things weren't happening in South Africa and in the Israel's conflicts.
Category 3 - people who are particularly outraged that a democracy should behave with such brutality, but shrug their shoulders when Sri Lanka does worse in its Tamil conflict, or Syria in its civil war, or China in Tibet. Unfortunately, Israel's democracy is adding to the problem, as their system gives disproportionate influence to the lunatic fringe, and because the calls for vengeance are harder to resist than would be the case in a dictatorship...hence for example the lack of pressure on Egypt's government to relieve Gaza, from home or abroad.
Sorry for the length of this. I want to understand how other people feel about this because I have changed my own views so much over the years and I expect I will again. i also don't think that someone who thinks differently is intellectually or morally deficient - ideas exist to be discussed and challenged. For what it's worth, I think Israel's actions are storing up even bigger conflict into the future, and they won't always win. At the same time, I can understand why they don't place any faith in promises of multinational support if they disarm and withdraw, or believe that their opponents will be satisfied with that. A longer-term settlement requires sacrifice on both sides, and I don't see the will on either side. In part, this is because of the hardening given to attitudes by religion on both sides, augmented on the Hamas side by their enthusiastic attitude towards martyrdom. I'd like to be more optimistic, but there you go... |
Great post. Considered and logical. Different perspective and opinion to mine using global comparisons.
Bit late tonight but I'll try to find time tomorrow at work to reply to a few points.
Re. The Jewish/Israeli point, no, I did actually mean Jewish. Similar to how I could be an ex pat living in Spain and be ashamed of something the UK govt did. However, I want to explain this in more detail especially because so many residents in Israel have dual nationalities, hence not restricting my comment to "Israeli".
As I said, I'll try to give a response your post deserves. [Post edited 28 Jul 2014 23:41]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 02:07 - Jul 29 with 1705 views | Cornish_oooRRRR |
Fascinating thread although roll on the season, there's more than enough hatred to be aimed at poor innocent chelsea players.
Aunt Nelly, for what it's worth, your choice and style of insults do make you come across as a bit of a dickhead |  |
| |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 02:39 - Jul 29 with 1695 views | RangersAreBack |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:36 - Jul 28 by Hunterhoop |
A) that's not what you were arguing earlier when you said "the Arabs started the conflict", hence my factual rebuttals
and,
B) that line if argument is silly. I know full well about it, but take it to it's nihilistic conclusion and we'll need to go back to the start of time to determine the "cause".
If you applied the same logic to everything else, we'd be saying the root cause of everything was when Man was born and we all lived in caves.
Jews and Arabs lived in relative harmony in the secular state of Palestine for years prior to 1944-47, when the Zionist movement (which only began in the late 19th century as a movement) really gathered pace and turned to terrorist activities to seek a quickened creation of Jewish state after the atrocities of the Nazis.
It was at that point that "the conflict" as we know it and as is relevant for today's discussion began.
I know my facts.
Also I think all your talk of historical right to the land fails to understand and appreciate the distinction between Judaism, as a religion, and Zionist as a fundamentalist nationalistic movement.
We're not going to agree, clearly, but I do have a decent understanding of the "facts" as you like to put it. [Post edited 28 Jul 2014 21:43]
|
a) I am not going back to the beginning of time, I am very clear on the timelines.
b) Historical and scientific evidence proves that the Jews lived in the region at least 3000 ago, some 1600 years before the Muslims arrived. The perception of the Jews as invaders is incorrect. They returned home.
c) The Arabs first occupied the Holy Land by waging war against the Jews in the 7th century, so yes they started the conflict. This is a more accurate and meaningful starting point than your rather weak assertion that the conflict began with the UN partition in 1948.
d) To ignore everything prior to 1948 as irrelevant when presented with stone cold, irrefutable facts demonstrates stubbornness, naivety, bias and ignorance.
e) I am very clear on Zionism as a fundamentalist nationalistic movement as I am clear on Hamas as a Islamic terrorist government. This is why I take a balanced view and insist both parties should be held to account.
I know my facts. It's my job to know, not just a dissertation. [Post edited 29 Jul 2014 2:51]
| | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 02:47 - Jul 29 with 1693 views | RangersAreBack |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:37 - Jul 28 by kropotkin41 |
That's an interesting perspective, but if you were to accept a Jewish claim to the whole of the land that Zionists envisage as greater Israel on the grounds that Jews have lived there for a long time, you might consider handing London back to the Welsh as their ancestors were certainly the occupants of Britannia before us scruffy Saxons turned up.
It's jolly nice that you know your history of the Middle East, I think that's great, but I'm afraid it's pretty irrelevant except as a means to explaining the ideology of rabid Zionists. |
The history of London and the Welsh is irrelevant to this discussion; the history of Palestine is not.
I don't accept a Jewish claim to the whole of the land just as I don't accept that Arabs are being forced out of their home to live in the garden shed. | | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 02:49 - Jul 29 with 1692 views | RangersAreBack |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 23:34 - Jul 28 by THEBUSH |
While Israel control the media and politics of the USA and the UK, there can be no peace talks, until they obliterate Gaza.
Israel don't give a toss about us or anyone else, they only care about themselves.
The sooner the USA leaves Israel to fight their own battles, the better.
Cameron and Blair have both accepted money from the Jewish lobby in the UK, it's about time they came clean about it, some hopes. [Post edited 28 Jul 2014 23:36]
|
Perhaps but Hamas clearly don't give a toss about ordinary Palestinians. | | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 03:15 - Jul 29 with 1682 views | RBlock |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 13:31 - Jul 28 by TheChef |
Israel doesn't want or need this war but she cannot live in peace until Hamas has been removed and a peaceful, prosperous future determined for the people of Gaza.
What people seem to fail to understand is that Israel is fighting Hamas - a terrorist, fundamentalist organisation. Israel is NOT fighting the Palestinian people who tragically have been placed in danger by an organisation who cares about more about killing Israelis than the lives of their own people. And who would rather spend aid money on rockets and attack tunnels than building a decent society for the people it is supposed to govern.
The Hamas Covenant calls for the obliteration of Israel and the Jews.
Compare that with Israel's declaration of independence, stating:
"WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."
The so-called leaders are idiots on both sides, and the civilians get hurt. It's very unfortunate, but that's how it always is in war. The difference is in the values. One side is a democracy (not without faults), which cherishes the sanctity of life, freedom of speech, freedom of choice and equal rights, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, religion, sexual identity, etc. Israel wants peace and has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
The other side is lead by an extremist Islamic organization, which forbids any other way of life; which does not value life, and has no problem sacrificing innocent lives. In fact, Hamas TV's message to Israel was: “From the Al-Qassam Brigades to the Zionist soldiers: The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life.” |
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/netanyahu-palestinian-state.html
Doesn't Netanyahu rule out an free Palestinian state just there? |  | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 05:33 - Jul 29 with 1657 views | exiled_dictator |
it's obvious that there are two camps that are never going to agree.
one camp accept israel to exist and protect its citizens, the other doesn't.
i believe in the state of israel and a homeland for the jews. less happy that so many innocent people always get killed in these too often flare-ups.
my dad's older brother was a professor of political studies in tehran university, before iran was hijacked. another of his brothers was involved in local small politics, so we always grew up in a house of discussion.
i would say to the Muslim world: In celebration of Eid, declare peace.
sit down and discuss options for moving forward.
this cycle of violence does nothing but kill innocent people on all sides, and cause heartache.
there is no absolute right answer; there never will be.
the best solution is a compromised deal for all sides.
it's just the degree of compromise that needs to be agreed on. |  |
| It's not what you've got; it's where you stick it. | | Poll: | Climate Change |
| |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 07:05 - Jul 29 with 1624 views | facto |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 18:34 - Jul 25 by kropotkin41 |
Oh, and for what it's worth I wouldn't want another Israeli to play for QPR until there is justice for Palestine which in my opinion would mean the Right of Return and the dismantling of the Israeli apartheid apparatus entirely.......... one country for Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel.
No Justice, No Peace. |
politics should have nothing to do with sportsmen/women.............just my observation! | | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 07:27 - Jul 29 with 1616 views | Hunterhoop |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 02:39 - Jul 29 by RangersAreBack |
a) I am not going back to the beginning of time, I am very clear on the timelines.
b) Historical and scientific evidence proves that the Jews lived in the region at least 3000 ago, some 1600 years before the Muslims arrived. The perception of the Jews as invaders is incorrect. They returned home.
c) The Arabs first occupied the Holy Land by waging war against the Jews in the 7th century, so yes they started the conflict. This is a more accurate and meaningful starting point than your rather weak assertion that the conflict began with the UN partition in 1948.
d) To ignore everything prior to 1948 as irrelevant when presented with stone cold, irrefutable facts demonstrates stubbornness, naivety, bias and ignorance.
e) I am very clear on Zionism as a fundamentalist nationalistic movement as I am clear on Hamas as a Islamic terrorist government. This is why I take a balanced view and insist both parties should be held to account.
I know my facts. It's my job to know, not just a dissertation. [Post edited 29 Jul 2014 2:51]
|
Hold on there. No need to resort to insults.
I think I've presented a pretty balanced view. I've justified it, provided facts and not been extreme in anything I've said. You need to pipe down a tad and stop behaving like a child. Ignorance and bias, please! That is not fair.
I maintain If you take the same approach of basing today's problems on what happened thousands of years ago you do several things:
1) you actually make irrelevant everything that has happened since in "causing" the conflict as it exists today.
2) a nihilistic end to your argument simply means everything started atcthecfirstcpoibtvtime a group of people occupied some territory, which isn't particularly helpful in the case of analysis and evaluation of historic events and issues.
3) you don't recognise the "relative" calm prior to 1944 and prior to 1897, when Pakestine was a secular state with both religions existing therein. Is that not a variation on the various peace plans mooted today, albeit with two religious states rather than one secular with two religions??
4) you ignore all the Palestinians who were displaced after 1948 through to c. 1973. Just because Jewish people lived on that first, it's absolutely fine for them to be turfed out? They had nothing to do with what happened thousands of years ago. The conflict today concerns them and their children and grandchildren. I personally don't think it's a much to do with people who lived 100 generations ago. But then I'm agnostic, and dislike the idea if faith and organised religion anyway.
The two parties have had issues going back thousands of years. Yes, I don't disagree with this. So do we and the French. So do lots of nations and religious groups. But they are not all still at odds with each other to the extent is the case with the Arab/Israeli conflict. I just find the idea that group A was there "first" thousands of years ago so they're entitled to it and merely "returned home" perverse. None of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948 not since have any responsibility for what went on then. The world moves on. My view is you can't just use that as some high level catch all justification for the overall Israeki strategic approach to the conflict.
My assertion, for which I've provided quite a bit of justification, is that for the purpose of analysing the Arab/Israeli conflict in it's current guise, the cause sits with Zionist terrorism and a badly designed and implemented partition plan off the back of it. Your original claim was the cause was started by the Arabs launching the 1948 war (and 4 subsequent wars) which I think is incorrect and misleading.
You now want to take the cause right back thousands of years. Fine. It's your opinion. You're welcome to it. I personally don't think it's a just view for the reasons I've given but I'm not going to resort to name calling just because we disagree. I'm not that petty. [Post edited 29 Jul 2014 7:37]
| | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 08:32 - Jul 29 with 1573 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 07:27 - Jul 29 by Hunterhoop |
Hold on there. No need to resort to insults.
I think I've presented a pretty balanced view. I've justified it, provided facts and not been extreme in anything I've said. You need to pipe down a tad and stop behaving like a child. Ignorance and bias, please! That is not fair.
I maintain If you take the same approach of basing today's problems on what happened thousands of years ago you do several things:
1) you actually make irrelevant everything that has happened since in "causing" the conflict as it exists today.
2) a nihilistic end to your argument simply means everything started atcthecfirstcpoibtvtime a group of people occupied some territory, which isn't particularly helpful in the case of analysis and evaluation of historic events and issues.
3) you don't recognise the "relative" calm prior to 1944 and prior to 1897, when Pakestine was a secular state with both religions existing therein. Is that not a variation on the various peace plans mooted today, albeit with two religious states rather than one secular with two religions??
4) you ignore all the Palestinians who were displaced after 1948 through to c. 1973. Just because Jewish people lived on that first, it's absolutely fine for them to be turfed out? They had nothing to do with what happened thousands of years ago. The conflict today concerns them and their children and grandchildren. I personally don't think it's a much to do with people who lived 100 generations ago. But then I'm agnostic, and dislike the idea if faith and organised religion anyway.
The two parties have had issues going back thousands of years. Yes, I don't disagree with this. So do we and the French. So do lots of nations and religious groups. But they are not all still at odds with each other to the extent is the case with the Arab/Israeli conflict. I just find the idea that group A was there "first" thousands of years ago so they're entitled to it and merely "returned home" perverse. None of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948 not since have any responsibility for what went on then. The world moves on. My view is you can't just use that as some high level catch all justification for the overall Israeki strategic approach to the conflict.
My assertion, for which I've provided quite a bit of justification, is that for the purpose of analysing the Arab/Israeli conflict in it's current guise, the cause sits with Zionist terrorism and a badly designed and implemented partition plan off the back of it. Your original claim was the cause was started by the Arabs launching the 1948 war (and 4 subsequent wars) which I think is incorrect and misleading.
You now want to take the cause right back thousands of years. Fine. It's your opinion. You're welcome to it. I personally don't think it's a just view for the reasons I've given but I'm not going to resort to name calling just because we disagree. I'm not that petty. [Post edited 29 Jul 2014 7:37]
|
Great stuff on this thread since yesterday.
Mr. Sheen, that was a great post, and you're not the only one who changes his mind on this issue - I do too. But then, that's exactly wht should happen when we surround ourselves by intelligent comment. |  |
| |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 08:34 - Jul 29 with 1568 views | THEBUSH |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 02:49 - Jul 29 by RangersAreBack |
Perhaps but Hamas clearly don't give a toss about ordinary Palestinians. |
The ordinary Palestinians actually voted for Hamas, who won the last Gaza elections.
It's a brutal war going on over there, I just don't understand how Israel can be so callous in bombing and shelling innocent civilians.
Cameron, Obama and others have said almost nothing, because the Jewish Lobby in the UK and USA have paid them off.
The Jewish lobby in the UK have paid the Conservative Party over 15 million pounds towards their re-election funds. [Post edited 29 Jul 2014 8:36]
| | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 08:53 - Jul 29 with 1537 views | Marshy |
The underlying tone of some of the comments on here are quite clearly Anti-Semitic. You know who you are! | | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 09:14 - Jul 29 with 1521 views | N12Hoop |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 08:34 - Jul 29 by THEBUSH |
The ordinary Palestinians actually voted for Hamas, who won the last Gaza elections.
It's a brutal war going on over there, I just don't understand how Israel can be so callous in bombing and shelling innocent civilians.
Cameron, Obama and others have said almost nothing, because the Jewish Lobby in the UK and USA have paid them off.
The Jewish lobby in the UK have paid the Conservative Party over 15 million pounds towards their re-election funds. [Post edited 29 Jul 2014 8:36]
|
Can you define "the Jewish Lobby" please and give details of this £15m.
You sound like the mouthpeace for the conspiracy theorists. |  |
| |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 09:40 - Jul 29 with 1502 views | N12Hoop |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 10:43 - Jul 28 by Hunterhoop |
I haven't got involved to date because this is such a passionate subject of mine. I studied it and actually did my dissertation on comparing how the British press reported the conflict in 1948 (partition plan and creation of the State of Israel) vs 1993 (Oslo Peace Accord)
But I have to point out that comment about "the Arabs began the conflict" is completely factually incorrect.
The Zionist movement began the conflict after WWII by commiting many terrorist attrocities on arab residents of Palestine and the occupying British forces. It was these attroctities and "trouble" that the terrorist groups (Irgun, Lehi, Haganah) caused the British that basically caused us to pull out, given the domestic turmoil and shortage of troops after WWII. It had been going on to a lesser degree since 1940 but ramped up towards the end of WWII.
That in turn led to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. The intitial agreement to which the Arab representatives were invited involved giving c. 60% of land to the Jews and 40% of land to the Arabs. The Arabs, at the time, made up c. 60% of the population and the Jews 40%. Ergo, the partition plan was both statistically unbalanced (unfair, if you will) and would involve the displacement of thousands of arabs from their homes. Having received notification of the plans in advance of the meeting, the Arab representatives (perhaps, foolishly) chose not to attend the meeting as form of strike over the plan. Rather than re-engage, The British and UN who were leading the discussions, and with the true horrors of the holocaust very fresh in the memory and a global outcry for a Jewish state, just went ahead and implemented the plan and left.
The Arabs, launched a war, ballsed it up completely (lots of neighbouring arab states (chefs) spoiling the broth, so to speak) and the newly founded Israel, backed by the US, managed to actually hold them off, and effectively win. There were several wars in the following decades, which Israel either won or held them off, pushing back the Palestine Arabs into ever decreasing plots of land in what was previously Palestine.
But the key point is the 1948 partition plan was rushed through almost purely because of the violent terrorist campaign in Palestine by Zionists groups which the British didn't want to deal with, so they just pulled out in a hurry. Deir Yassin, whilst not an attack on British troops is an example of such zionist militia activity on civilians (107 arab civilian deaths (conservative estimate), 4 zionist militia deaths). It was this activity and, specifically when it was aimed at british troops, which "started the conflict" between 1945-47.
Worth getting your facts straight first. |
You make an interesting point around the carve up of the territory being done in such a rush that it was never agreed by the Arabs and was the start of the problems. However, do you think that even if negotiations had gone on there would have been an all-round agreement or is it going to be used forever as an excuse?
Also, whilst the Arabs were in control of Jerusalem my understanding is that they did not allow Jews or Christians access to their holy sites and it was only once Israel pushed the Arabs out of the Old City that the holy shrines were open for everyone. Surely no matter how much time the UN and British had spend trying to negotiate a partition of the territory, I suspect that the Arabs would never have accepted it and would have invaded anyway. | |
| |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 09:50 - Jul 29 with 1490 views | ElHoop |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 09:40 - Jul 29 by N12Hoop |
You make an interesting point around the carve up of the territory being done in such a rush that it was never agreed by the Arabs and was the start of the problems. However, do you think that even if negotiations had gone on there would have been an all-round agreement or is it going to be used forever as an excuse?
Also, whilst the Arabs were in control of Jerusalem my understanding is that they did not allow Jews or Christians access to their holy sites and it was only once Israel pushed the Arabs out of the Old City that the holy shrines were open for everyone. Surely no matter how much time the UN and British had spend trying to negotiate a partition of the territory, I suspect that the Arabs would never have accepted it and would have invaded anyway. |
I'm not sure that 'partition' is ever a great idea. If you aren't going to get on OK in the single old country then you are unlikely to get on as two separate ones with bits and pieces of country and people all over the bloody shop. |  | | |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 10:55 - Jul 29 with 1442 views | kysersosaqpr |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 09:50 - Jul 29 by ElHoop |
I'm not sure that 'partition' is ever a great idea. If you aren't going to get on OK in the single old country then you are unlikely to get on as two separate ones with bits and pieces of country and people all over the bloody shop. |
E.g Ireland's partition; a disaster ever since it happened. | |
| The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. |
| |
| Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 11:08 - Jul 29 with 1424 views | isawqpratwcity |
robert fisk, the great war for civilisation, is a good read on how things went wrong. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
