|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sat 11 May 16:33
... sort of.
Googled "Israel v Palestine for dummies." Led to: "Israel-Palestine: everything you need to know." (1)
In a nutshell.
1. They're fighting over land.
2. Jews and Arab Muslims claims to the land goes back "a couple of thousand years."
3. The current political conflict arose when Jews "fleeing persecution in Europe" wanted land of their own.
4. Cue wars in 1948 and 1967 between Arabs and Jews in the region.
5. In 1967, Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza strip which were largely populated by Palestinians.
6. Today the West Bank is occupied by Israeli troops. Gaza is controlled by Hamas.
(source of all the above is (1) below).
"Hamas is a Palestinian political organisation and militant group that has waged war on Israel since 1987. It seeks to replace Israel with a Palestinian state. It also governs Gaza independently of the Palestinian authority." (2)
sources:
(1) https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18079996/israel-palestine-conflict-guide-explainer
(2) https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080058/israel-palestine-hamas
A possibly contentious statement in the above is: Hamas "seeks to replace Israel with a Palestinian state."
How reliable is the info I have sourced? It is from Vox - seems to be American.
Next, what interests me is what does the Palestinian Authority want?
Post Edited (Sat 11 May 17:10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 11 May 16:37
OR
Cause:Sarai suggested Abram having relations with Hagar.
Solution:Time machine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sat 11 May 17:02
The Palestinian Authority / Palestinian Government is the result of an agreemant between Israel and the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) in 1994.
Under the agreement, "governing functions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be progressively handed over to a Palestinian Council. During that time Israel and the Palestinians were to negotiate a permanent peace treaty to settle on the final status of these territories." (3)
Hamas and several other Islamist groups denounced the peace agreement. (3)
So where does that get us?
What are the wishes of the Palestinian people? Would they accept the above agreement? What do they want?
source:
(3) https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestinian-Authority
Post Edited (Sat 11 May 17:06)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sat 11 May 18:55
What do the Palestinian people want?
Quote:
1. An end to Israeli occupation of Arab lands occupied in 1967.
2. An end to Israel's colonisation and apartheid targeting the indigenous population of Palestine since 1948.
3. The return of Palestinian refugees who were ethnically cleansed when Israel was created in their land.
by Dr Haidar Eid, "Associate Professor... at Al-Aqsa University, Gaza Strip, Palestine. He doesn't care for the agreement between Israel and the PLO, and wants a "rights-based approach" to a solution.(4)
Note - he refers to "Palestine".
"Palestine is now considered a country by the U.N. and most of its members. While it is recognized as a sovereign state, Palestine does not actually possess any land, and most of the territory called Palestine is controlled by Israel. The State of Palestine claims two territories: the Gaza Strip and the West Bank."(5)
Sources:
(4) https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181121-what-do-the-palestinians-want-from-the-international-community/
(5) worldpopulationreview.com/countries/palestine-population/
Post Edited (Sat 11 May 18:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 12 May 00:27
Ref: Andrew Neil thread
richie5401
Date: Sat 11 May 13:28
<<< Do you really believe if Palestinians laid down their weapons Israel would attack? >>>
I don't think Palestinians are concerned about that. As I read the situation, the Palestinians who kill and injure Israelis are trying to end the Israeli occupation.
If Hamas and other Palestinians gave up their violence against Israelis, would Israel leave the Gaza Strip and West Bank and return control of them to the Palestinians?
Both sides need to quit the violence, and in fact it seems some Palestinians are trying to end the occupation by non-violent protest, holding marches, in which it is said many have been injured and killed by Israelis:
"the masses in Gaza are resorting to peace as an effective weapon by organizing peaceful marches in which thousands are taking part. These activities have been ongoing since Land Day on Friday March 30th [2019]... Israel tried to transform it into violent confrontation by the use of violence in which they killed unarmed civilians and injured thousands. Nevertheless, the peaceful demonstrations have continued." (6)
So clearly it is wrong to equate "Palestinian" with violence against Israel.
Might it be that Hamas and other militant groups with their violence are hindering the aims of the majority of Palestinians? On the other hand, did not terrorism work for the IRA and MK (the military wing of the ANC) in getting them a seat at the big table and ultimately, power sharing? If so, what kind of message does that send to the likes of Hamas?
source:
(6) http://www.kairospalestine.ps/index.php/kairos-palestine-blog/250-the-palestinian-people-are-committed-to-seeking-freedom
Post Edited (Sun 12 May 00:30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sun 12 May 09:18
Here's simple.
Israel is stolen land and Isreal has been bombing schools this week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 12 May 10:58
I think you're right it is stolen land.
Therefore the only solution is for the occupation to end and return the land to Palestinian control.
I have spoken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sun 12 May 11:20
Quote:
onandupthepars, Sun 12 May 10:58
I think you're right it is stolen land.
Therefore the only solution is for the occupation to end and return the land to Palestinian control.
I have spoken.
ra
There's no question it's stolen, only a religious extremist would side with the murderous and absolutely insane Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 12 May 11:26
Yeah Hamas are great. Nice chaps.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 12 May 11:46
Not sure where that gets us, Rasta and TOWK.
There's no doubt that Hamas and the Israeli government are guilty of murdering many people, including many children, between them.
It can't go on forever. I wouldn't support a Scottish Independence terrorist organisation, all terrorism stinks to hell.
Israeli government and Hamas and other violent militant groups are guilty.
I sentence them all to PEACE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sun 12 May 13:42
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sun 12 May 11:26
Yeah Hamas are great. Nice chaps.
And there's your true colours, condoning attempted genocide.
You and the religous nut are well suited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 12 May 14:29
Aye whatever Rasta. I could say you are showing your true colours with your criticism of Israel.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Sun 12 May 18:40
'Aye whatever Rasta. I could say you are showing your true colours with your criticism of Israel.'
By not supporting a genocidal nation? Good on Rasta imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 12 May 20:51
But me not supporting Hamas is showing my true colours?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 12 May 23:07
Come on guys, surely you can see that Hamas's violence is wrong and the Israeli government's violence is wrong.
Whatever is made of the details, blame, justifications, who's killed more, who's suffered more etc, they are both organisations engaged in murder.
Post Edited (Sun 12 May 23:10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 13 May 19:46
Are you a pacifist onandupthepars?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 13 May 20:21
Very interesting question, Wotsit. One I've never asked myself. And is it a loaded question ? Would you mind saying what you mean by pacifist, because I don't want to assume it means the same for both of us.
Upfront I will say I think violence is necessary and justified sometimes, but I can't see the need on either side in the Is/Pal case.
(Wife calling, dash it - just when it's getting interesting. If you respond I will get back to you Wot.)
Post Edited (Mon 13 May 20:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 13 May 20:40
I ask because I think that it is the only valid reason for viewing Israeli and Palestinian violence as equivalents.
I.E. if violence is, in your view, never justified then it is understandable to say that an army shooting at refugees (often children) they've occupied, displaced, packed into camps and put under severe sanctions is in any way comparable to the people in said camps using violence to resist the occupation.
That's before we even mention the huge difference in scale between the two. Note that the average Palestinian is 15 times more likely to become a victim of this conflict - this is just the figure for deaths remember; we're not counting displacement, injury, homelessness or any of the may other ways in which Palestinians are massively more likely to be the victims of this conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Mon 13 May 22:11
Very balanced analysis there..about as balanced as a one legged tightrope walker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 13 May 22:46
Ref: Wotsit
Date: Mon 13 May 20:40
<<< I.E. if violence is, in your view, never justified then it is understandable to say that an army shooting at refugees (often children) they've occupied, displaced, packed into camps and put under severe sanctions is in any way comparable to the people in said camps using violence to resist the occupation.>>>
a) I think you're saying the army shooting at refugees is not justifiable but "the people in said camps using violence to resist the occupation" is.
b) And then the issue of the scale of the violence. Yes I know more Palestinians than Israelis have been injured and killed. Are you suggesting that is a second justification on top of the aforementioned? Just getting your meaning straight Wot.
If I've understood you right, what I'd say is that in the case of a) refugees being attacked ought to defend themselves if they can. If I was there and could, I'd shoot their attackers myself.
That's resisting an attack there and then. But what does it mean to resist the occupation? Anything goes? Attack and kill Israeli soldiers in the West Bank. Indiscriminately kill Israelis by using missiles and bombs? I hope you don't think I'm intimidating. I'm just asking. What is acceptable to you in resisting the occupation?
b) Scale. Does the larger number of deaths and casualties on the Palestinian side justify their retaliating with violence? I think it depends on the kind and degree of violence. I need to think more about that but I believe terrorism is never justified.
What is the point of the violence from each side? If it's not in defending themselves from an actual attack? The Palestinians are never going to overpower Israel. And Israel already occupies Palestine. So it's not a war in which each side is defending itself, it's just intimidation and revenge. Understandable but not justifiable. Causing devastating suffering.
Post Edited (Tue 14 May 00:51)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 13 May 22:51
I'm not sure I understand your point Mario.
Do you mean that the figures presented in the article are skewed? Do you accept the validity of the statistics presented but feel that the article is unfair to Israel by presenting just these facts and missing out others? Something else?
Can you provide me with specifics re what you find so objectionable?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 13 May 23:34
Looks like you just came under sniper fire there Wotsit.
You can lead a dotnetter to the forum, but you can't make him/her post.
Ah well, just the two of us and I've got to hit the sack soon.
I've just googled the word "Peace". It's got over one and a half billion results. You'd think that lot would amount to something.
I think I'll sing myself a song, "Somewhere over the rainbow, weigh a pie..."
I wonder what's happening on Kepler-62f (only 1,200 light years away)...😊
Post Edited (Tue 14 May 09:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 14 May 08:47
Gosh it's quiet here on Kepler-62f. They've got this thing called "Politics forum" sending messages out into deep space.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Tue 14 May 18:45
These maps do not exactly support Richie’s claim that the Israelis are the only group willing to compromise. The concept of Arab Palestine is common to us in Europe but is not always recognised within Israeli politics; I remember some years ago the formidable Golda Meir making this point very openly.
One solution being considered in the long term is for Israeli to make the ostensibly magnanimous gesture of handing back responsibility for the Gaza Strip to Egypt, the Golan Heights to Syria and parts of the West Bank to Jordan. In theory this would remove altogether the concept of Arab Palestine although in practice it would prove very difficult to achieve political agreement with the other parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 15 May 15:42
Millions of articles have been written over the years defending the Israeli position. These maps eloquently blunt the Zionists' misleading claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Wed 15 May 19:33
Surely the simple answer is for the State of Israel to be recognised by the Palestinians and other Arab States instead of constant threats.
That would be the meaningful basis for giving back territories not part of when Israel was created.
Palestine was never a country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 15 May 19:45
The State of Palestine recognised Israel in 1993 parbucks. 26 whole years ago, coincidentally it was also the last time there was a reasonably conciliatory government in Tel Aviv. Do you recall what happened to Yitzhak Rabin when he gave an inch?
There are loads of other inaccuracies in your post fyi, not sure if you knew?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 15 May 23:02
Yitzhak Rabin. Who remembers him now? He's as much the past as Harold Wilson I suppose, but a pretty decent man.
He tried to appease the right wing elements within Israeli society and was given the Neville Chamberlain treatment as a result. The political deterioration of Israeli politics is one of the saddest events of my life. To start with such optimism, such belief in the human spirit, and regress to petty nationalism based on biblical precedent- this on what was a secular society- has helped formed the redundant identity politics of our age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 15 May 23:10
It was worse than the Chamberlain treatment sammer - he got the full JFK.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 19 May 04:52
Sorry onandupthepars, I missed your great response to my post from last week.
I'm going to be cheeky and focus on one part if I may? I think that it is a good example for what I mean.
It's where you said (on mobile so paraphrasing, sorry):
"I think that all terrorism is wrong"
Do you honestly? All?
What about the Italian partisans during WWII?
What about the Boston Tea Party?
The ANC?
And that's the ones which I can assume that we agree are/were: a) terrorists by most definitions b) not worthy of contempt.
There are plenty more in a grey area where there impact and/or moral objectives are/were more subjective.
So that's my view on terrorism: it's complicated.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 19 May 09:24
The intentions of terrorist groups can be a complicated issue. If you have ever read the Hamas charter I'd hope it would certainly make that particular group a less complicated judgement call for you.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 19 May 10:07
Ref: Wotsit
Date: Sun 19 May 04:52
<<< What about the Italian partisans during WWII?
What about the Boston Tea Party?
The ANC?
And that's the ones which I can assume that we agree are/were: a) terrorists by most definitions b) not worthy of contempt.
There are plenty more in a grey area where there impact and/or moral objectives are/were more subjective.
So that's my view on terrorism: it's complicated. >>>
Gotta think about that lot. But it could take a while, so I'd better give some sort of reply.
I knew about the ANC and the violence of MK, the 'freedom fighters' trained by Mandela. (Sad how he's seen by many as a great humane man, when even he resorted to terrorism.) Here's an example of MK violence:
'A multitude[16] of bombs at restaurants and fast food outlets, including Wimpy Bars,[17] and supermarkets occurred during the late 1980s, killing and wounding many people. Wimpy were specifically targeted because of their perceived rigid enforcements of many apartheid laws, including excluding non-whites from their restaurants.' (1)
Note 'Wimpy were targeted' but it was ordinary people who were killed and wounded, not the people who insisted on Wimpy's apartheid policy.
Terrorism worked for Mandela and the ANC. That's why terrorism persists. Mandela and MK showed everyone how to get what they want. Hence today's messed up terrorist-infected world.
Yes there were big positives in South Africa as a result (or in spite of MK's activities.) I still can't agree that the terrorism used to get them was justified.
According to wiki, the aim of MK was "to act only against hard targets such as power pylons and avoid any injury or loss of life." (2)
Blowing up Wimpy bars!
That's how I see it at the moment. Maybe there are degrees of terrorism. And also what do we mean by it? To me it means people who have nothing to do with the struggle are killed or injured.
Source: (1) & (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe
Post Edited (Sun 19 May 17:17)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 19 May 10:08
Yes, the distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists is often very blurred.
The Lehi, perhaps better known as the Stern Gang, was regarded by the British Mandatory Authority in Palestine as a terrorist organisation in the 1940s. Forty years later, its leader, Yitzhak Shamir (who, unlike Mandela, was an acknowledged killer), was prime minister of Israel.
Another former Israeli PM in the eighties, Menachem Begin, was the leader of the Irgun when it was judged responsible for the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem that killed 91 and injured 46.
Some saw these politicians as freedom fighters while others saw them as murdering terrorists.
What is not in doubt, is that the high moral ground claimed today by the current Israeli Government in relation to Palestinian insurgents has a very, very shady history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sun 19 May 10:45
Quote:
OzPar, Sun 19 May 10:08
Yes, the distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists is often very blurred.
The Lehi, perhaps better known as the Stern Gang, was regarded by the British Mandatory Authority in Palestine as a terrorist organisation in the 1940s. Forty years later, its leader, Yitzhak Shamir (who, unlike Mandela, was an acknowledged killer), was prime minister of Israel.
Another former Israeli PM in the eighties, Menachem Begin, was the leader of the Irgun when it was judged responsible for the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem that killed 91 and injured 46.
Some saw these politicians as freedom fighters while others saw them as murdering terrorists.
What is not in doubt, is that the high moral ground claimed today by the current Israeli Government in relation to Palestinian insurgents has a very, very shady history.
Yeah Snipers shooting unarmed children in the face is pretty shady....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 19 May 11:14
I don't see anyone here defending Hamas TOWK.
Although their rise to power in Gaza was, under the circumstances, inevitable after the people there felt let down by the secular Palestinian Authority of Fatah.
Hamas is not in control of the West Bank remember - the PA controls that, and they aren't Hamas' biggest fans either.
I thought you said you weren't a pacifist oautp? How could you possibly say that the violence of the ANC wasn't completely justified under the circumstances? How far does a state have to go, in your view, before a violent response is justified?
By the way, there was much more terrorism in the 60s-80s than there is today, so no need to lament the recent rise.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 19 May 11:43
I didn't say violence wasn't justified Wotsit. I said terrorism. I think - for example - the ANC could have blown up military targets and assassinated apartheid-enforcing extremists without resorting to blowing up restaurants. Doesn't make sense to me - well, except in the sense that it's far easier to blow up soft targets ie. citizens relaxing on a night out.
Don't you agree murdering unarmed citizens is wrong? No matter if there's less of it than there used to be it's still despicable.
Armed struggle - of course it is justified in certain cases. But targeted, not indiscriminate. So they wanted to target Wimpy. Blowing up the building is one thing, but blowing the place up when you know there's ordinary folk in there. It's wrong. Can't help feeling that way about it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 19 May 12:12
All violence toward unarmed civilians is abhorrent.
But why target non-state actors for your disapproval? The scale of state violence toward civilians is massive compared to that carried out by non-state actors.
And what do we do about human shield tactics if we have a zero tolerance policy toward civilian death?
What about armament factories staffed by civilians? May those be targeted?
Food production facilities preparing field rations? Although we're not sure whether they are currently running a batch for supplying POW camps or the armed forces, if that makes a difference?
What if all of your targets are military reservists who are off duty?
Things are rarely clear cut - context and detail are crucial.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 19 May 13:34
Ref: Wotsit
Date: Sun 19 May 12:12
<<< All violence toward unarmed civilians is abhorrent. >>>
I'd say all terrorism rather than all violence as I'm sure there are cases where violence against unarmed civilians would be justified, e.g.to stop unarmed man raping girl.
(It's difficult to be word perfect. But I think you know as I do that if we're to get anywhere with such a difficult discussion and understand each other we have to give each other some leeway with our words and try to discuss in good faith, as I think we are doing.)
<<< why target non-state actors for your disapproval? The scale of state violence toward civilians is massive compared to that carried out by non-state actors. >>>
By 'non-state actors' you mean e.g. MK and Hamas? But I'm against all terrorism, including state actors, e.g. Israel.
What d'you mean by 'state violence' Wot? (Could be different to state terrorism.)
The other things you mentioned need more thinking about. When I said MK could have attacked military targets instead of soft ones, I didn't mean any military target would have done, but they could have been more justifiable to me than civilian targets which were not justifiable at all.
Post Edited (Sun 19 May 14:21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 19 May 14:31
So you agree that violence is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater atrocity?
If so, is this such an atrocity?
I'm still confused as to what you count as a military target?
Or is it actually really unclear and therefore not open to being made simple?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 19 May 16:48
Ref: Wotsit
Sun 19 May 14:31
<<< you agree that violence is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater atrocity?
If so, is this* such an atrocity>>>
* hot-link refers to: “Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus”
Are you asking me if I think terrorism is justifiable to try and win back the lands where Palestinians lived before the exodus? If so, no. Not even if it was successful.
<<< I’m still confused as to what you count as a military target? Or is it actually really unclear and therefore not open to being made simple?>>>
I think you are asking me what I would consider to be a justifiable military target (- I wish I could do italics – can you tell me how to do them, Wot? I would have put justifiable in italics for emphasis.)
A simple example is this, referring again to MK:
“The aim was to act only against hard targets such as power pylons and avoid any injury or loss of life.”
The manifesto referred to by Mandela … included the statements:
“We are fighting for a South Africa in which there will be peace and harmony and equal rights for all people… The African National Congress has a message of freedom for all who live in our country.” (1)
Evidently it meant “freedom for all who live in our country” except those who were to be indiscriminately murdered by MK terrorism.
(1) source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe
Post Edited (Sun 19 May 17:18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 19 May 16:55
What is and isn't a justifiable military target isn't the issue. The issue is terrorism: shouldn't happen. Especially not killing children. That is clear-cut.
Post Edited (Sun 19 May 16:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 19 May 22:01
I'm asking if terrorism would have been justified to prevent the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 people.
I'm interested to see that you didn't express disgust that the terrorists who commited those acts went on to become the Israeli army and political class.
I'm also interested in how many people conflate support for the Palestinian people for support of Hamas. Nobody even mentions Fatah or the PLO now, despite the fact that they are actually in charge of the State of Palestine and are one of the biggest forces fighting Hamas.
Having said that, if you ethnically cleanse people then keep them in a deliberately under-resourced prison camp for over 60 years they may get a wee bit desparate.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Sun 19 May 22:25
Its quite crazy how the Palestinians aren't happy to sit down on their hands while Israel 'Liberates' land territory from them and murders their families in cold blood. How dare they fight back
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 20 May 11:36
Ref: Wotsit
Sun 19 May 22:01
<<< I'm interested to see that you didn't express disgust that the terrorists who commited those acts went on to become the Israeli army and political class.>>>
You're wrong there Wotsit. I have said before that terrorists end up at the big table and in power. That's exactly what I meant. And I have mentioned 'other militant Palestinian groups', though not Fatah specifically.
I've got some stuff I have to do today so I can't spend time on this right now, but like you, it sickens me that terrorists end up in government - anywhere - South Africa, Israel, Palestine (yes the Palestinian Authority with it's PLO members).
No, terroriism not justifiable to save the 700,000. Attacking the perpetrators justifiable.
Interesting posts from you Wot. I sense some heat in your words. Fair enough, we can't go tip-toeing around each other. Let's keep saying what we think but also try and understand each other. I shall return!
<<< Having said that, if you ethnically cleanse people then keep them in a deliberately under-resourced prison camp for over 60 years they may get a wee bit desparate >>>
Yes it's true. Understandable. But not smart baiting the Israeli rottweiller. Maybe smarter to get world opinion on your side - even more strongly than now - by declaring an end to terrorism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Mon 20 May 13:12
The world for the most part couldn't care less. Only time any of the big nations do take an interest in foreign nations is when their are natural resources at stake. Palestine is on its own, against a nuclear armed terrorist state, with military equipment and supplies that would put most non G8 nations to shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 20 May 13:20
I remember an interesting conversation I had on a long bus trip with three Israeli guys who were discussing the situation at home with the Palestinians.
While they had no great love for the Palestinians, they reserved most of their ire for the Hasidic Jews (those guys with the funny haircuts and beards under wide-brimmed hats) who, they said, were a larger part of the problem than the Arabs.
According to my travelling companions, it is largely members of this ultra-orthodox group that are building new homes in the occupied territories. They tend to cluster together and spend their lives quite separate from the rest of the population. They are not greatly liked, apparently, but they are highly influential in Zionist and Israeli Government circles.
I got the strong impression from the guys on the bus that most Israelis are nowhere near as strident in their dislike of Palestinians as their government or the Hasidic community is.
Maybe there is hope?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 21 May 00:43
Ref: Andrew283
Date: Mon 20 May 13:12
<<< The world for the most part couldn't care less... Palestine is on its own. >>>
I sometimes think like that Andrew. But
"As of 3 August 2018, 137 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognized it." (1)
That is encouraging. But then there's this:
'Palestine is not recognized as a state by Israel, the United States, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the European Union, among others.' (2)
If those Palestinians who use terrorism were to stop, even the U.S. might find it difficult to maintain a position against Palestinians as a whole. It is said that public opinion brought an end, or helped to bring an end, to the Vietnam war. And not just because of heavy U.S. casualties. Photo-journalism such as the picture of the children running along the road after their village was bombed with napalm is said to have helped gather support for an end to it. The moral high ground might be worth something.
source:(1) & (2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
Post Edited (Tue 21 May 01:28)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 21 May 00:52
Ref: OzPar
Date: Mon 20 May 13:20
<<< I got the strong impression from the guys on the bus that most Israelis are nowhere near as strident in their dislike of Palestinians as their government or the Hasidic community is. Maybe there is hope? >>>
Thanks for that insight, Ozpar. Maybe a tiny chink of hope if Israeli moderates could get into power?
Post Edited (Tue 21 May 00:56)
|
|
|
|
|
|
