By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
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...
Mr Sheen!
As I said, I'll try to respond to most of your post. Apologies if I missed something.
1) Of course, Israel has a right to defend its people. That's one of the key responsibilities of a government. What I dispute is a) that the "threat" is anywhere near as grave as Likud, and Netanyahu now, make out. As I said, they have a very well developed missile defence system and the enemy isn't exactly the Russian military. This latest "tunnel" defence is interesting. How many Hamas fighters have been killed in these tunnels? How many civilians have been killed above ground? There clearly is a militant/terrorist threat to Israel from Hamas, but I don't accept it's as much of a threat to a borderline super power as Israel make out. The other point I'd make on this, is Hamas aren't the largest, strongest and best equipped group in the world. Israel possesses one of the most developed capable national intelligence organisations in the world in Mossad. Surely, surely, they could get to the key figures in Hamas much better with a targeted approach? Surely they could get the key players without the need to bomb civilian areas and UN hospitals?? I just don't accept this approach of wave after wave of air strikes and bombardment of a civilian area, is the only approach or the best approach to defend their civilians.
2) As I've said throughout, I am absolutely no fan of Hamas. I have said repeatedly that they have put back the peace process. But what I want to ask is what was Israel's policy when the Fatah were in charge and the PLO before that. Were they building settlements post 1993? Where they launching air strikes on Gaza when a very few rogue Palestinians or members of terrorist groups, such as Hamas, who were NOT in power/control of Gaza, launched the odd rocket? Yes. Their militant approach to Gaza has been, in the grand scheme of things, similar even when Palestinians were represented by a globally recognised PLO who publically talked about peace and a two state settlement. Hamas are far far more extreme and are clearly bad for a resolution. But actually having Hamas as the face of the opposition actually helps justify Israel's approach. Point is, the approach was roughly the same, although maybe not quite as severe, before as it is now.
3) I did indeed mean "Jewish" not "Israeli". This is a really delicate point so I hope I explain it well. No doubt I'll have someone string me up if I don't! Maybe residents of Israel hold dual nationality. There are a lot of US Jews who live part of the year in Israel for example. By definition part of the year they live outside of the Israel. Conversely, friends and family may live outside of Israel. Nevertheless, just because you aren't responsible for the government (by voting for it in a democracy), you can still be ashamed of it. This is especially so when that govt is operating in the name of Zionism, which is defined as a nationalistic movement for a "Jewish" homeland. So, it's not a leap at all to say the approach of the Israeli government is being done in the name of Judaism, even if it not all Jews support it. As such, I think you can (and should) be Jewish and ashamed of the Israeli govt, even if you didn't elect it. They're using your religion for a justification for military action against innocent civilians (and terrorists). My personal view. Appreciate people may not agree, but wanted to try to explain it properly. Some of the comparisons you made wouldn't be relevant, others would be and I feel my stance would be consistent.
4) The global comparisons of similar situations you make (Morocco, Sri Lanka, etc) during the rest of your post are very relevant. Alas, I don't profess to know as much as I should about them. I certainly am no expert in all the world's conflicts. I'm not an expert in this one either! My lack of knowledge of "evils", as you put it, going on elsewhere is ignorance on my part. But just because you're ignorant of one evil doesn't mean you are precluded from commenting or being passionate about wrongdoing committed that you do know of. None of us can possibly know about all the areas of conflict and the rights and wrongs.
The more interesting issue, which I think you're getting at (and is a fascinating discussion in it's own right) is why does the Arab/Israeli conflict get so much coverage in the media and stir so many passions (good and bad!)? I don't really have time to give my thoughts on the matter, and I doubt many would be interested. But I don't accept that simply because other wrong doing is taking/has taken place elsewhere in the world, and maybe not with the media coverage it warranted, you should downplay what this conflict.
Another period of history I am interested in is the Spanish Civil War. "Oh no!", I hear you cry. I feel quite passionately about that and the injustices that took place. However, it received far less coverage than WWII (completely understandably!) and a number of other conflicts in the last 200 years. But that doesn't mean people's passion for those conflicts/war should be questioned simply because they weren't aware about the Spanish Civil War.
Anyway, good post, Mr Sheen. Hope I've responded to what you were looking for a response on. I wouldn't say I quite fit in with any of your categories, if I'm honest. I just think Israel, as the world power, military power and fully fledged democracy, with first world standards of living hold the key to a resolution to this conflict. I don't think bombing civilian areas will deliver a resolution unless your genuine aim is to wipe out all the civilians, which I don't believe it is and truly hope it isn't!
0
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 11:28 - Jul 29 with 2336 views
Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, Col. Richard Kemp said of Israel's previous operations in Gaza: "the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
The IDF is doing everything it can to minimise civilian casualties, and they have an incredibly difficult job in doing so when Hamas' operations are so entrenched in the civilian population. The IDF sends out warnings every time it plans to hit targets, but Hamas will not let their own people evacuate those targetted areas - to them, from a media perspective, a dead Palestinian is worth more than a living Palestinian. Arguably, and very sadly, that strategy is working for them.
In short, Israel is defending its civilians with missiles; Hamas is defending its missiles with civilians.
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 11:55 - Jul 29 by TheChef
Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, Col. Richard Kemp said of Israel's previous operations in Gaza: "the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
The IDF is doing everything it can to minimise civilian casualties, and they have an incredibly difficult job in doing so when Hamas' operations are so entrenched in the civilian population. The IDF sends out warnings every time it plans to hit targets, but Hamas will not let their own people evacuate those targetted areas - to them, from a media perspective, a dead Palestinian is worth more than a living Palestinian. Arguably, and very sadly, that strategy is working for them.
In short, Israel is defending its civilians with missiles; Hamas is defending its missiles with civilians.
Waste of time writing some sensible truth. It will always be ignored by the rabid unobjective nutters who have no interest in truth or reality. They will continue to ignore any other perspective than their own.
0
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 13:00 - Jul 29 with 2242 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 11:18 - Jul 29 by Hunterhoop
Mr Sheen!
As I said, I'll try to respond to most of your post. Apologies if I missed something.
1) Of course, Israel has a right to defend its people. That's one of the key responsibilities of a government. What I dispute is a) that the "threat" is anywhere near as grave as Likud, and Netanyahu now, make out. As I said, they have a very well developed missile defence system and the enemy isn't exactly the Russian military. This latest "tunnel" defence is interesting. How many Hamas fighters have been killed in these tunnels? How many civilians have been killed above ground? There clearly is a militant/terrorist threat to Israel from Hamas, but I don't accept it's as much of a threat to a borderline super power as Israel make out. The other point I'd make on this, is Hamas aren't the largest, strongest and best equipped group in the world. Israel possesses one of the most developed capable national intelligence organisations in the world in Mossad. Surely, surely, they could get to the key figures in Hamas much better with a targeted approach? Surely they could get the key players without the need to bomb civilian areas and UN hospitals?? I just don't accept this approach of wave after wave of air strikes and bombardment of a civilian area, is the only approach or the best approach to defend their civilians.
2) As I've said throughout, I am absolutely no fan of Hamas. I have said repeatedly that they have put back the peace process. But what I want to ask is what was Israel's policy when the Fatah were in charge and the PLO before that. Were they building settlements post 1993? Where they launching air strikes on Gaza when a very few rogue Palestinians or members of terrorist groups, such as Hamas, who were NOT in power/control of Gaza, launched the odd rocket? Yes. Their militant approach to Gaza has been, in the grand scheme of things, similar even when Palestinians were represented by a globally recognised PLO who publically talked about peace and a two state settlement. Hamas are far far more extreme and are clearly bad for a resolution. But actually having Hamas as the face of the opposition actually helps justify Israel's approach. Point is, the approach was roughly the same, although maybe not quite as severe, before as it is now.
3) I did indeed mean "Jewish" not "Israeli". This is a really delicate point so I hope I explain it well. No doubt I'll have someone string me up if I don't! Maybe residents of Israel hold dual nationality. There are a lot of US Jews who live part of the year in Israel for example. By definition part of the year they live outside of the Israel. Conversely, friends and family may live outside of Israel. Nevertheless, just because you aren't responsible for the government (by voting for it in a democracy), you can still be ashamed of it. This is especially so when that govt is operating in the name of Zionism, which is defined as a nationalistic movement for a "Jewish" homeland. So, it's not a leap at all to say the approach of the Israeli government is being done in the name of Judaism, even if it not all Jews support it. As such, I think you can (and should) be Jewish and ashamed of the Israeli govt, even if you didn't elect it. They're using your religion for a justification for military action against innocent civilians (and terrorists). My personal view. Appreciate people may not agree, but wanted to try to explain it properly. Some of the comparisons you made wouldn't be relevant, others would be and I feel my stance would be consistent.
4) The global comparisons of similar situations you make (Morocco, Sri Lanka, etc) during the rest of your post are very relevant. Alas, I don't profess to know as much as I should about them. I certainly am no expert in all the world's conflicts. I'm not an expert in this one either! My lack of knowledge of "evils", as you put it, going on elsewhere is ignorance on my part. But just because you're ignorant of one evil doesn't mean you are precluded from commenting or being passionate about wrongdoing committed that you do know of. None of us can possibly know about all the areas of conflict and the rights and wrongs.
The more interesting issue, which I think you're getting at (and is a fascinating discussion in it's own right) is why does the Arab/Israeli conflict get so much coverage in the media and stir so many passions (good and bad!)? I don't really have time to give my thoughts on the matter, and I doubt many would be interested. But I don't accept that simply because other wrong doing is taking/has taken place elsewhere in the world, and maybe not with the media coverage it warranted, you should downplay what this conflict.
Another period of history I am interested in is the Spanish Civil War. "Oh no!", I hear you cry. I feel quite passionately about that and the injustices that took place. However, it received far less coverage than WWII (completely understandably!) and a number of other conflicts in the last 200 years. But that doesn't mean people's passion for those conflicts/war should be questioned simply because they weren't aware about the Spanish Civil War.
Anyway, good post, Mr Sheen. Hope I've responded to what you were looking for a response on. I wouldn't say I quite fit in with any of your categories, if I'm honest. I just think Israel, as the world power, military power and fully fledged democracy, with first world standards of living hold the key to a resolution to this conflict. I don't think bombing civilian areas will deliver a resolution unless your genuine aim is to wipe out all the civilians, which I don't believe it is and truly hope it isn't!
Thanks for the reply, HH. Somewhat unreasonably, my employer expects to me work today, but I will try to get back to you later.
1
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 14:26 - Jul 29 with 2190 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 10:55 - Jul 29 by kysersosaqpr
E.g Ireland's partition; a disaster ever since it happened.
Ireland probably -- India possibly. Palestine definitely.
I was chatting to a Bangladeshi taxi driver on the way somewhere or the other and he held the view that the partition of India had not been a good thing. Can't remember it all now but the water supply had been badly distributed in favour of India and in other ways he didn't think that Pakistan would have ended up in such a mess if it hadn't have existed in the first place. Well that was his view anyway, I've no idea whether or not it would have worked out.
Ireland I think we did try to give them Home Rule, that was a part of history I did at A-level and Gladstone certainly gave it his best shot, but at the end of the day if you can't persuade enough people then it's a non-runner. However it doesn't appear that partition has a great case history. South Africa managed to avoid it under Mandela and has probably benefited from that fact as there's been plenty of scope for bother down there. The USA just fought it all out to a conclusion and avoided a partition.
0
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 14:50 - Jul 29 with 2174 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 14:26 - Jul 29 by ElHoop
Ireland probably -- India possibly. Palestine definitely.
I was chatting to a Bangladeshi taxi driver on the way somewhere or the other and he held the view that the partition of India had not been a good thing. Can't remember it all now but the water supply had been badly distributed in favour of India and in other ways he didn't think that Pakistan would have ended up in such a mess if it hadn't have existed in the first place. Well that was his view anyway, I've no idea whether or not it would have worked out.
Ireland I think we did try to give them Home Rule, that was a part of history I did at A-level and Gladstone certainly gave it his best shot, but at the end of the day if you can't persuade enough people then it's a non-runner. However it doesn't appear that partition has a great case history. South Africa managed to avoid it under Mandela and has probably benefited from that fact as there's been plenty of scope for bother down there. The USA just fought it all out to a conclusion and avoided a partition.
I may well be wrong, but S Africa didn't partition cuz those Afrikanners took over Namibia - all the money went there? Really not sure of my facts, but seem to remember this. Someone out there confirm or not?
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
0
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 17:25 - Jul 29 with 2099 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 11:55 - Jul 29 by TheChef
Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, Col. Richard Kemp said of Israel's previous operations in Gaza: "the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.
The IDF is doing everything it can to minimise civilian casualties, and they have an incredibly difficult job in doing so when Hamas' operations are so entrenched in the civilian population. The IDF sends out warnings every time it plans to hit targets, but Hamas will not let their own people evacuate those targetted areas - to them, from a media perspective, a dead Palestinian is worth more than a living Palestinian. Arguably, and very sadly, that strategy is working for them.
In short, Israel is defending its civilians with missiles; Hamas is defending its missiles with civilians.
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 12:06 - Jul 29 by timcocking
Waste of time writing some sensible truth. It will always be ignored by the rabid unobjective nutters who have no interest in truth or reality. They will continue to ignore any other perspective than their own.
Same as you and your closed mind, unbelievable comments !!
0
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 20:32 - Jul 29 with 2004 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 18:50 - Jul 29 by THEBUSH
If you don't know what the Jewish Lobby is, I'm sorry I ain't got time to explain it to you.
But, If your really interested, look at this programme, which was on Channel 4.
Sorry, best I can do !!
So you're linking a comment about the "jewish lobby" and the Conservative Party to a programme about the Friends of Israel. Are you aware that there are Christians, Muslims, Druze and various other practicing religions in Israel or does your dislike for Jews just get in the way of that?. Are you aware that Friends of Israel includes Labour politicians.
What about England under Tony Blair? I don't recall a radically different approach to Israel. It seems Governments generally are supportive.
The fact that an unbelievably small minority of the British population can have such influence is admirable. What these people are doing is trying to protect the interests of a small democratic country surrounded by dictatorships intent on destroying it. There are around 250,000 Jews in England versus some 3 million Muslims. No one is stopping them trying to influence politicians, but given that Jews don't generally stand up and call for Jihad against their hosts or sharia law to be put in place, it's perhaps no surprise that they have a sympathetic ear.
The Palestinians of Gaza have done nothing to help themselves. They could have made a life in Egypt before they shut their borders but chose not to. They could have used cement and materials to construct schools and hospitals. Instead they have taken aid and used it to build tunnels with the sole extent of causing atrocities across the border. This war is tragic make no mistake, but your arguments just make you come across as a complete racist.
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]
It's perfectly fair. I base my argument on thousands of years of continuous unrest between the 2 parties started by the Arabs waging war in the 7th century. You choose to ignore this chain of events and focus on a UN partition in 1948, British incompetence and Zionist terrorism in a vain attempt to give your anti-semetic views some semblance of credibility.
You then go on to make unsubstantiated claims that I do not recognise periods of calm or Palestinians being displaced. I can only assume you resort to such red herrings in a vain attempt to mask the weakness of your hypothesis and maintain a bias against Zionism.
I most certainly do recognise the displacement of Palestinians and sympathise with their plight at the hands of both Israel and Hamas. What I won't stand for is utter bias against any one side or Britain bashing, a trend which has sadly become both fashionable and acceptable in this country in recent times.
I personally prefer to maintain a balanced view that ignores propaganda. I assert, as I have done throughout this thread, that both parties are to blame, both should be held to account, and the international community should seek a diplomatic solution that allows everyone to live side-by-side in peace once and for all.
0
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 20:49 - Jul 29 with 1980 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 20:32 - Jul 29 by N12Hoop
So you're linking a comment about the "jewish lobby" and the Conservative Party to a programme about the Friends of Israel. Are you aware that there are Christians, Muslims, Druze and various other practicing religions in Israel or does your dislike for Jews just get in the way of that?. Are you aware that Friends of Israel includes Labour politicians.
What about England under Tony Blair? I don't recall a radically different approach to Israel. It seems Governments generally are supportive.
The fact that an unbelievably small minority of the British population can have such influence is admirable. What these people are doing is trying to protect the interests of a small democratic country surrounded by dictatorships intent on destroying it. There are around 250,000 Jews in England versus some 3 million Muslims. No one is stopping them trying to influence politicians, but given that Jews don't generally stand up and call for Jihad against their hosts or sharia law to be put in place, it's perhaps no surprise that they have a sympathetic ear.
The Palestinians of Gaza have done nothing to help themselves. They could have made a life in Egypt before they shut their borders but chose not to. They could have used cement and materials to construct schools and hospitals. Instead they have taken aid and used it to build tunnels with the sole extent of causing atrocities across the border. This war is tragic make no mistake, but your arguments just make you come across as a complete racist.
Your a fake, I've heard it all before, I should have sussed you out, more fool me. BTW, they are not my arguments, they are the programmes findings, you just can't stand the truth.
-1
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:11 - Jul 29 with 1968 views
Just watched new planet of the apes film. Had read it alluded to political intransigent, and without being disrespectful to the various comments here - I can see why (albeit it toned down for a US teen audience).
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
0
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 22:04 - Jul 29 with 1938 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 21:11 - Jul 29 by kysersosaqpr
Just watched new planet of the apes film. Had read it alluded to political intransigent, and without being disrespectful to the various comments here - I can see why (albeit it toned down for a US teen audience).
There's some serious accusations being thrown around alright. Don't know which poster asked but the question as to why this conflict angers people more than any other has been on my mind all day.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 22:04 - Jul 29 by BrianMcCarthy
There's some serious accusations being thrown around alright. Don't know which poster asked but the question as to why this conflict angers people more than any other has been on my mind all day.
One reason is, religion, I suppose, always been good for an argument.
0
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 23:14 - Jul 29 with 1872 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 20:34 - Jul 29 by RangersAreBack
It's perfectly fair. I base my argument on thousands of years of continuous unrest between the 2 parties started by the Arabs waging war in the 7th century. You choose to ignore this chain of events and focus on a UN partition in 1948, British incompetence and Zionist terrorism in a vain attempt to give your anti-semetic views some semblance of credibility.
You then go on to make unsubstantiated claims that I do not recognise periods of calm or Palestinians being displaced. I can only assume you resort to such red herrings in a vain attempt to mask the weakness of your hypothesis and maintain a bias against Zionism.
I most certainly do recognise the displacement of Palestinians and sympathise with their plight at the hands of both Israel and Hamas. What I won't stand for is utter bias against any one side or Britain bashing, a trend which has sadly become both fashionable and acceptable in this country in recent times.
I personally prefer to maintain a balanced view that ignores propaganda. I assert, as I have done throughout this thread, that both parties are to blame, both should be held to account, and the international community should seek a diplomatic solution that allows everyone to live side-by-side in peace once and for all.
Hold on, I have no "utter bias". I'm agnostic and have no family that are Arab or Palestinian. I wouldn't gain personally in any way from the conflict. I'm British. I live in London. I'm a QPR fan.
Just because I have a different opinion to you, you claim an "utter bias". I'm sure you know your history of the region, I can see you care passionately about this topic too, but you're no debater. It's extremely petty to simply dismiss a different stance by claiming it's "utter bias". In fact it undermines all your reasoning.
I've explained repeatedly why I think the most important cause of the conflict in it's current guise is the Zionist movement, its terrorist activities and a botched partition plan. You disagree. Fine. Great. Give yourself a pat on the back. Stroke that ego. Do whatever it is that makes you happy. I really don't care you have a different opinion. Part of me respects you for caring so much and putting so much time into thinking about it.
But I seriously resent your accusations of bias, ignorance and everything else you've accused me of when it's pretty obvious I have a good knowledge of the conflict, but simply a different analysis and evaluation to you. I'd expect any academic or intelligent person to respect reasoned opinions different to theirs. Clearly I'm wrong to....
0
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 23:26 - Jul 29 with 1863 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 23:14 - Jul 29 by Hunterhoop
Hold on, I have no "utter bias". I'm agnostic and have no family that are Arab or Palestinian. I wouldn't gain personally in any way from the conflict. I'm British. I live in London. I'm a QPR fan.
Just because I have a different opinion to you, you claim an "utter bias". I'm sure you know your history of the region, I can see you care passionately about this topic too, but you're no debater. It's extremely petty to simply dismiss a different stance by claiming it's "utter bias". In fact it undermines all your reasoning.
I've explained repeatedly why I think the most important cause of the conflict in it's current guise is the Zionist movement, its terrorist activities and a botched partition plan. You disagree. Fine. Great. Give yourself a pat on the back. Stroke that ego. Do whatever it is that makes you happy. I really don't care you have a different opinion. Part of me respects you for caring so much and putting so much time into thinking about it.
But I seriously resent your accusations of bias, ignorance and everything else you've accused me of when it's pretty obvious I have a good knowledge of the conflict, but simply a different analysis and evaluation to you. I'd expect any academic or intelligent person to respect reasoned opinions different to theirs. Clearly I'm wrong to....
Differing opinion is one thing; on that basis we can debate. But if you are going to nonchalantly dismiss a reasonable opinion backed by historical fact as "wrong" then you better have a damn good explanation. Whilst it's clear you possess extensive knowledge and insight into the events surrounding 1948, setting an arbitrary low water mark of 1948 for the entire conflict strikes me as rather tenuous.
Notwithstanding historical events I touched upon earlier, the 1920 Arab riots, the 1921 Jaffa riots, the 1929 Palestine riots, the 1936-39 Arab revolt and cooperation between Nazi Germany and Arab nationalists all affected the outcome of the 1948 Palestine War.
[Post edited 4 Aug 2014 18:37]
1
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 18:55 - Aug 4 with 1543 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 11:18 - Jul 29 by Hunterhoop
Mr Sheen!
As I said, I'll try to respond to most of your post. Apologies if I missed something.
1) Of course, Israel has a right to defend its people. That's one of the key responsibilities of a government. What I dispute is a) that the "threat" is anywhere near as grave as Likud, and Netanyahu now, make out. As I said, they have a very well developed missile defence system and the enemy isn't exactly the Russian military. This latest "tunnel" defence is interesting. How many Hamas fighters have been killed in these tunnels? How many civilians have been killed above ground? There clearly is a militant/terrorist threat to Israel from Hamas, but I don't accept it's as much of a threat to a borderline super power as Israel make out. The other point I'd make on this, is Hamas aren't the largest, strongest and best equipped group in the world. Israel possesses one of the most developed capable national intelligence organisations in the world in Mossad. Surely, surely, they could get to the key figures in Hamas much better with a targeted approach? Surely they could get the key players without the need to bomb civilian areas and UN hospitals?? I just don't accept this approach of wave after wave of air strikes and bombardment of a civilian area, is the only approach or the best approach to defend their civilians.
2) As I've said throughout, I am absolutely no fan of Hamas. I have said repeatedly that they have put back the peace process. But what I want to ask is what was Israel's policy when the Fatah were in charge and the PLO before that. Were they building settlements post 1993? Where they launching air strikes on Gaza when a very few rogue Palestinians or members of terrorist groups, such as Hamas, who were NOT in power/control of Gaza, launched the odd rocket? Yes. Their militant approach to Gaza has been, in the grand scheme of things, similar even when Palestinians were represented by a globally recognised PLO who publically talked about peace and a two state settlement. Hamas are far far more extreme and are clearly bad for a resolution. But actually having Hamas as the face of the opposition actually helps justify Israel's approach. Point is, the approach was roughly the same, although maybe not quite as severe, before as it is now.
3) I did indeed mean "Jewish" not "Israeli". This is a really delicate point so I hope I explain it well. No doubt I'll have someone string me up if I don't! Maybe residents of Israel hold dual nationality. There are a lot of US Jews who live part of the year in Israel for example. By definition part of the year they live outside of the Israel. Conversely, friends and family may live outside of Israel. Nevertheless, just because you aren't responsible for the government (by voting for it in a democracy), you can still be ashamed of it. This is especially so when that govt is operating in the name of Zionism, which is defined as a nationalistic movement for a "Jewish" homeland. So, it's not a leap at all to say the approach of the Israeli government is being done in the name of Judaism, even if it not all Jews support it. As such, I think you can (and should) be Jewish and ashamed of the Israeli govt, even if you didn't elect it. They're using your religion for a justification for military action against innocent civilians (and terrorists). My personal view. Appreciate people may not agree, but wanted to try to explain it properly. Some of the comparisons you made wouldn't be relevant, others would be and I feel my stance would be consistent.
4) The global comparisons of similar situations you make (Morocco, Sri Lanka, etc) during the rest of your post are very relevant. Alas, I don't profess to know as much as I should about them. I certainly am no expert in all the world's conflicts. I'm not an expert in this one either! My lack of knowledge of "evils", as you put it, going on elsewhere is ignorance on my part. But just because you're ignorant of one evil doesn't mean you are precluded from commenting or being passionate about wrongdoing committed that you do know of. None of us can possibly know about all the areas of conflict and the rights and wrongs.
The more interesting issue, which I think you're getting at (and is a fascinating discussion in it's own right) is why does the Arab/Israeli conflict get so much coverage in the media and stir so many passions (good and bad!)? I don't really have time to give my thoughts on the matter, and I doubt many would be interested. But I don't accept that simply because other wrong doing is taking/has taken place elsewhere in the world, and maybe not with the media coverage it warranted, you should downplay what this conflict.
Another period of history I am interested in is the Spanish Civil War. "Oh no!", I hear you cry. I feel quite passionately about that and the injustices that took place. However, it received far less coverage than WWII (completely understandably!) and a number of other conflicts in the last 200 years. But that doesn't mean people's passion for those conflicts/war should be questioned simply because they weren't aware about the Spanish Civil War.
Anyway, good post, Mr Sheen. Hope I've responded to what you were looking for a response on. I wouldn't say I quite fit in with any of your categories, if I'm honest. I just think Israel, as the world power, military power and fully fledged democracy, with first world standards of living hold the key to a resolution to this conflict. I don't think bombing civilian areas will deliver a resolution unless your genuine aim is to wipe out all the civilians, which I don't believe it is and truly hope it isn't!
Nothing the Israeli state is doing is in the name of Judaism. Israel is a secular state and Judaism is a religion. The Israeli state may say it is acting in the interests of the population of Israel, which is predominantly Jewish, but it is not acting in the interests of Jews or Judaism.
Less than half the world's Jewish population lives in Israel, so to conflate the actions of the Israeli state with the views, desires and interests of the Jewish people is both factually and ethically wrong. And the reason that a lot of people get prickly when Jews/Israel are used interchangeably is that 1) Anti-semites have always been very keen to stress the link between Israel's actions and the Jewish people, which means others who do risk unwittingly painting themselves into the same corner as the anti-semites 2) Once you do start treating them interchangeably, then precisely because the majority of Jewish people do not live in Israel you teeter dangerously close to the old idea of the "international Jewish conspiracy". If "the Jews" are doing something bad, then they must all be in it together. The Israeli government does not represent Jewish people as a mass. 3) This confused linkage, between a religion, an ethnicity and a nationality is not made with any other people. I accept that the fact that Israel was founded as a Jewish homeland confuses the issue, but it was a Jewish homeland for the people who wanted to go there, not for everyone, and its politics is not a uniform set of views — within Israel there is always debate about the actions of the state.
1
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 19:04 - Aug 4 with 1533 views
Barton and Yossi in twitter spat on 22:04 - Jul 29 by BrianMcCarthy
There's some serious accusations being thrown around alright. Don't know which poster asked but the question as to why this conflict angers people more than any other has been on my mind all day.
Complex issue but I believe it boils down to one thing . Prejudice.
No doubt it's a terrible situation in Gaza but at any time there is far worse sht going on in the world, and particularly in the middle east. Right now Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iraq are on fire and ISIS are a huge threat and commiting horrific atrocities daily but nobody gives a fck. I believe it's because those conflicts don't involve Jews. Many people just don't like them.
Then on the Israeli side you have a nation born out of prejudice and thousands of years persecution. They fought for and won back their homeland. Literally drew a line in the sand, said "Never again. Here we stand or die" and have been fighting to hold it ever since. With billions of arabs on their doorstep who want to drive them into the sea they have no choice but to react aggressively to any perceived threat. Show any weakness and they'll be toast. It's probably a good thing for the rest of us because you can be sure if they ever come close to being overrun they won't hesitate in turning that corner of the world into a inhabitable radioactive desert.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
