|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 16 May 04:44
Boycott these murdering, bullying bastards. Enough is enough. How many times do we stand by and shrug our shoulders as they bomb the **** out of the Palestinians?
The Palestinians fire back with pea-shooters against the most heavily armed military force in the Middle East; their rockets damage a pensioner`s house. The Israeli Army mouthpiece talks to a camera in solemn tones, describing this "atrocity" as if it was the end of the world.
An hour later, Israeli jets raze a 12-storey building to the ground in Gaza. This is the fourth such building downed by airstrikes this week. In an instant, three major news services lose their headquarters in the city. It has just got a little bit harder to report news from the Palestinian side... As the building collapses, more than two hundred people lose their homes.
Thirty years ago, we boycotted South Africa for its apartheid regime. What is Israel, if not an apartheid regime too?
Let`s stop doing nothing.
This has got to end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 16 May 07:53
I can’t really disagree with anything you’ve said to be hones... so if that is the case then why do you think we don’t do anything?
All the usual arguments are along the lines of:
-it’s guilt complex over Jewish treatment during WW2
-it’s that we had a hand in creating that mess by installing that Jewish state and they are an ally
-it’s that Israel buy arms of us?
-it’s that Jewish people hold prominent positions over here
-it’s that there is a strong Jewish block vote over here
Playing devils advocate for a minute
They’re all strong arguments but I genuinely wonder if, while we all empathise, could it be that (and let’s pretend we solved it and they had their own viable state) ...it would then by default be a religious state, essentially at odds with our western society and values?
Putting aside their need to defend and fight for their desires (which I totally understand - they are all victims of circumstance)...
Does the world really need a new Islamic state, full of zealots who have recently been involved in an armed struggle?
Just a thought
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stoo
Date: Sun 16 May 11:25
Been following this for about 15 years or so, im 33.
Nothing ever happens, nothing ever changes. But this time there does seem to be a bit of a ground swell in support of Palestinians. Social media doing its thing. I assume it will be the hot thing for a bit then dissipate and the Palestinians will be forgotten about again.
In response to the the devils advocate position. There are three options and only one right one.
1. The international community tells the USA where to go and forces the Israelis to seriously enter negotiations for a 2 state solution. It doesn`t right the wrongs of the 1948 Nakba but I believe the majority of Palestinians would accept it and its the only chance for peace.
2. Perpetual war. (Between illegally occupied and illegal occupier)
3. Liquidate the Palestinians.
If there are people that think Palestine would become a country of religious zealots, much like Israel, and that this is the worst case scenario they are opting for constant war, occupation and oppression or liquidation.
It is "complicated" but there is right and wrong in this and Israel is wrong.
Post Edited (Sun 16 May 11:37)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 16 May 18:11
One of the Israeli dead was lynched by his fellow settlers after they mistook him for a Palestinian. There`s a video online for anybody so inclined, however I seriously do not recommend it.
The thing that the above highlights is that it`s not actually the government`s military actions that are doing the real damage to the Palestinian people. Don`t get me wrong. the airstrikes and military actions do plenty damage, however it`s the reasons behind them that are the real, existential, problem for the Palestinian people: the settlements and the settler gangs who roam around the West Bank evicting Palestinians from their homes (if they are lucky - the unlucky ones are simply killed like the unluckily Palestinian looking guy in the video) then more settlers in move in to the now vacant house.
This has been an ongoing process since 1948.
Post Edited (Sun 16 May 18:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sun 16 May 23:24
"It is "complicated" but there is right and wrong in this and Israel is wrong."
The Arab and Islamic world has always refused to accept the right of Israel to exist as a nation, going back to 1948, with the exception of Egypt and Jordan - in their case largely due to repeated military setbacks.
Unless there is a move away from that fundemental entrenched mindset then there is no prospect of Israel changing its position.
There are no good guys in white hats and baddies with black ones in this conflict.
Post Edited (Sun 16 May 23:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 17 May 00:59
It`s not about denying the right of Israel to exist, it`s about denying the right of Israel to exist there. On Palestinian land. In homes which Palestinian families were dragged from.
What if the drafters of the Balfour Declaration had decided that Israel should exist in Clackmannanshire rather than Palestine? What do you reckon the locals would have to say?
What about when people were being dragged from their homes in Alloa so that settlers could take their place? Would a similar "entrenched mindset" not develop there too?
If it didn`t start to set in at that stage, what about if the settlers start to do the same in Oakley? I`m sure all the families whose homes were reallocated to settlers are delighted with their new hovels in Falkirk, generation after generation with no proper sanitation or healthcare and with soldiers from Alloa turning up periodically to bulldoze the place and shoot children, maybe an air raid or two if they are particularly entrenched in their mindset that week.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 17 May 09:18
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the past, maintaining that position means the conflict is unresolvable.
The reality is that only the usual suspects list of countries continue refusing to recognise Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 17 May 09:55
It's tough to work with people who are actively ethnically cleansing you.
People are still being dragged from their homes and replaced by settlers. Every day.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stoo
Date: Mon 17 May 10:18
With an internationally supported 2 state solution, with Israel forced to partake genuinely in negotiations and go back to even the 1948 borders. Allowing Palestine to exist with the ability to grow and succeed as a nation.
I can confidently say, again with international persuasion, that at least outwardly and politically the Arab nations would recognise Israel if they stopped killing and did the right thing.
The analogy with Clackmannan or any similar analogies may seem too simple but it absolutely kills any argument against Palestinians right to fight back against occupation. None of us would put up with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 17 May 10:29
Therein lies a fundemental issue - the Israelis don`t see "residency" of the original state of 1948 as occupation, subsequent land grabbing is a totally different matter of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stoo
Date: Mon 17 May 10:38
I dont think Israel as a state lives in the reality that the rest of us do.
They should be forced to understand. But they wont be. It`ll still be an issue in the next 73 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 17 May 14:56
the Israelis don`t see "residency" of the original state of 1948 as occupation
It is though, isn`t it? Almost the archetype for occupation and colonisation in fact?
And what about the individual residents of individual houses, or entire towns and villages, who were physically removed from their homes at gunpoint to facilitate the European colonisation of the region?
Basically, it`s wrong to blame the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians on the Palestinians. They didn`t commit the Holocaust and they don`t deserve to lose their country because of what Germany did in the 1930s
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 17 May 20:09
"It is though, isn`t it?"
As I said, there`s no going back to pre 1948 Palestine regardless of what went down.
A relative of mine worked in the Gulf states for a few years and disabused me of the notion that the Arab/Islamic focus on ending the existence of the state of Israel in the area was linked to establishing a homeland for displaced Palestinians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 18 May 10:06
For them it's about getting rid of the massive refugee camps in their countries.
A bit like European countries in 1948 when they wanted rid of their Jewish refugees.
Like I have said a few times, we don't have to go back to 1948 next it is an ongoing process and is still happening.
The first thing that needs to happen before their can be peace is for the Israeli government to stop backing up violent settlers and to stop forming new settlements/colonies.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Tue 18 May 10:26
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 18 May 10:06
For them it's about getting rid of the massive refugee camps in their countries.
A bit like European countries in 1948 when they wanted rid of their Jewish refugees.
Like I have said a few times, we don't have to go back to 1948 next it is an ongoing process and is still happening.
The first thing that needs to happen before their can be peace is for the Israeli government to stop backing up violent settlers and to stop forming new settlements/colonies.
"Forming new settlements/colonies" is a polite way of putting murdering people and stealing their homes.
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Thu 20 May 23:49
Why do so many people in this country spend so much time getting angry about Israel/Palestinians when compared with the much more serious and murderous activities of Turkey/Kurds, China/Uighurs or Saudi Arabia/Yemen? Sorry if that sounds like Whataboutery, but the attention to Israel's wrongdoing just seems disproportionate.
Yes, the Israeli response to the rocket attacks on their territory can also be seen as disproportionate (an eye for an eyelash) but the Israel Army makes deliberate attempts, not always successful, to minimise the loss of life. Hamas has a policy of using civilians as shields for their weaponry, and they certainly don't bother where their rockets land (a fair proportion actually come down in Gaza.)
The Palestinians are pawns in this game and have been since 1948 when the Grand Mufti instructed them to leave their homes so the Arab armies could sweep the Jews into the sea. And yes, many were also ejected by the Israelis as they repulsed the invading Arab armies.
The other Arab states don't care about the Palestinians - the partition plans of 1937 and 1947 for the territory of the Palestine Mandate were rejected, and there was no attempt to set up a Palestine State in the West Bank and Gaza when they were under Jordanian/Egyptian rule in 1948-1967 - rather there was the disastrous Six Day War attempt to crush Israel, resulting in the Zionist settlements in the West Bank. And nowadays Egypt keeps its border with Gaza shut just as much as Israel does.
Israel still faces an existential threat to its existence and the lives of its citizens from the likes of Iran, whose policy is to wipe Israel off the map. Once they have nuclear weapons they will have the ability to do so. Meanwhile Iran funds Hamas and Hezbollah just enough to pursue low-level conflict and make Israel look like a bully to reduce Western support.
And I would keep an eye on Turkey - as Erdogan moves more towards an Islamic state he may try to restore influence in what was the Ottoman Empire by championing the Palestinian cause.
I don't know the answer - everything that all sides do seems to make matters worse. Perhaps eventually there will be a reversion to the 1967 borders, with financial support for both the West Bank settlers and a new Palestinian state, and cast-iron guarantees of Israel's right to exist from all countries in the region.
But I'm not holding my breath, and in the meantime criticism of Israel should be balanced and recognise that the situation is far more complex than right v wrong - there are no good guys.
_________________
 Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club (DADSC) when you shop online with one of 8000 firms: https://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc[
Post Edited (Fri 21 May 00:05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 21 May 00:19
`but the Israel Army makes deliberate attempts, not always successful, to minimise the loss of life`
All armies always claim this, a policy more honoured in the breach rather than the observance. The point of violence, whatever the justification and attendant claims, is destruction of people and property. There is no distinction to be made between Hamas and the Israeli army in this regard, except the Israelis presumably have more accurate rockets.
`Israel still faces an existential threat to its existence`
So long as the USA supports the State of Israel there is no credible threat to its existence, which is part of the problem I think in terms of Israeli political behaviour. A glimpse at the expanding borders of the State of Israel since 1948 would indicate the opposite: that the existential threat is to the Palestinian people.
`Perhaps eventually there will be a reversion to the 1967 borders, with financial support for both the West Bank settlers and a new Palestinian state, and cast-iron guarantees of Israel`s right to exist from all countries in the region.`
How can there be a reversion to the 1967 borders? The State of Israel has been creating facts on the ground for over 50 years and will not cede one inch of that territory. A `new` Palestinian state would amount to little more than a collection of bantustans.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Fri 21 May 01:10
Quote:
sammer, Fri 21 May 00:19
The point of violence, whatever the justification and attendant claims, is destruction of people and property. There is no distinction to be made between Hamas and the Israeli army in this regard, except the Israelis presumably have more accurate rockets.
True, although I'm far from convinced that more sophisticated rocketry in the hands of Hamas would benefit the situation!
Quote:
So long as the USA supports the State of Israel there is no credible threat to its existence
One Iranian nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv would test that theory!
Quote:
A glimpse at the expanding borders of the State of Israel since 1948 would indicate the opposite: that the existential threat is to the Palestinian people.
The 1948 and 1967 expansions resulted from Israel's success on the battlefield - not dissimilar to the way the maps of the world have changed throughout history.
Quote:
How can there be a reversion to the 1967 borders? The State of Israel has been creating facts on the ground for over 50 years and will not cede one inch of that territory.
I said I was pessimistic about it (the West Bank settlers and militant Zionism are a major issue) but if you have a better or more realistic idea that would be great.
Quote:
A `new` Palestinian state would amount to little more than a collection of bantustans.
Not if it is on the 1967 borders. The West Bank and Gaza could be one state or two, either would be viable with financial support - Arab money would be better spent there than on football clubs and racehorses! :)
_________________
Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club (DADSC) when you shop online with one of 8000 firms: https://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc[
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 21 May 09:01
This country doesn't directly fund and support the ethnic cleansing of the Uyghur people. It did not draw up the agreement under which the situation was allowed to fester.
The perfidious Brits didn't promise Uyghur people independence because they needed their support then abandon them to be ethnically cleansed.
What goes in in places like Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Pakistan are all part of British history and are predicated on decisions made in Westminster just as much as they are decisions made by their current governments.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 21 May 09:27
They're examples of where we should have left well alone. And, yes, "we". Scots were as much a part of this as anyone else. We often to forget the part Scotland played in the Empire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 21 May 10:11
Stanza,
I’m not aware of any realistic solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict. When a state constitutionally defines its citizenry on the basis of religion or ethnicity then it cannot really be reformed, short of disintegrating like South Africa. Given the present US military and financial aid this is unlikely to happen to Israel, which I imagine is why the idea of a boycott was mentioned by the OP.
Talk of a ‘two state solution’ is only kicking the can down the road since it acknowledges the concept of first and second class citizenship within Israeli borders.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Fri 21 May 10:37
The thread is headed "Boycott" and as for the Uighurs, while the UK government doesn't have any responsibility for what is happening there we are each responsible as individuals for what we buy, and it seems probable that Uighurs are being used as forced labour in factories across China that supply
well-known global brands such as Apple, BMW, Gap, Huawei, Nike, Samsung, Sony and Volkswagen.
I agree with Wotsit that what happens today is predicated on things that happened in the past, and decisions taken a century ago still affect people today. In this context the UK (all parts of the UK, not just "Westminster") is responsible for the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1920 San Remo Conference and for the promises and half-promises made to Zionists and Arabs during the Palestine Mandate.
The whole affair was an almighty muddle, but if anything the British policy during the Mandate was pro-Arab rather than pro-Zionist.
Unfortunately I suspect the UK has very little influence now on the various governments and organisations waging war. Most Israeli weaponry (70%) is from the USA, with Germany, Italy and Canada all coming above the UK.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement in particular created the artificial borders of the area and denied the rights (or even existence) of the Kurdish minorities in modern Turkey, Syria and Iraq - tens of thousands have since died and Turkey (our NATO ally) is currently engaged in armed conflict and bombing of Kurdish targets in Iraq (Operation Claw-Lightning was launched a couple of weeks ago.) AFAIK the UK has made no official complaint, and nor has there been any significant outrage in UK society.
But history cannot be undone - the challenge for us all is to find solutions to the present problems, ideally before Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities.
_________________
Support Dunfermline Athletic Disabled Supporters` Club (DADSC) when you shop online with one of 8000 firms: https://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dadsc[
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stanza
Date: Fri 21 May 16:56
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 21 May 10:11
I’m not aware of any realistic solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict. When a state constitutionally defines its citizenry on the basis of religion or ethnicity then it cannot really be reformed, short of disintegrating like South Africa. Given the present US military and financial aid this is unlikely to happen to Israel, which I imagine is why the idea of a boycott was mentioned by the OP.
Talk of a ‘two state solution’ is only kicking the can down the road since it acknowledges the concept of first and second class citizenship within Israeli borders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Israeli Declaration of Independence stated that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.
Israel doesn`t have a Constitution. There are a number of Basic Laws that determine how the state interacts with its citizens. These laws are then interpreted if necessary by the Supreme Court.
All citizens of Israel have equal rights, as repeatedly determined by the Supreme Court. The main distinction is that there is no compulsory military service for Arab citizens (they can volunteer if they wish.)
After the 1967 war, everyone in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights was offered Israeli citizenship, but most refused, and their status is as permanent residents, with access to state resources.
Hebrew and Arabic are both official languages (although I think in the last few years there may have been some sort of downgrading of Arabic to a secondary language.)
Israeli Arabs participate in elections to the Knesset (the current Deputy Speaker is an Arab, and there is one Arab Supreme Court justice.)
Every state-run company is supposed to have at least one Arab member of its Board of Directors.
At least two Arabs are currently of General rank or above in the Israel Army.
Israel proclaims itself to be a Jewish state, and it would be naive to suggest there is no discrimination against Arabs. IMO this is probably getting worse as the divisions between the two communities are deepened and widened - partly by Israeli action (the law on recovery of property "lost" in 1948 is clearly discriminatory in favour of Jews, and was responsible in part for the latest violence).
But the divide is also growing with the Islamisation and radicalism of the Palestinians as part of the Arab world. The avowed aim of Hamas is the creation of an Islamic republic in Palestine to replace Israel, with Muslims raising the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine (their words). Since Hamas is funded by a potentially nuclear-armed Iran, that sounds like an existential threat to the state and people of Israel.
It`s also worth comparing the (admittedly relative) acceptance and citizenship of Arabs in Israel with the treatment of Jews in other Arab countries and in Iran - almost a million of whom have fled in recent decades, mostly to Israel.
Post Edited (Fri 21 May 17:02)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sat 22 May 09:06
Some if you are actually defending this holocaust?
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 22 May 21:58
Most constitutions look worthy enough at face value, just like Israel’s Declaration of Independence. The reality is often somewhat different. When I referred to the Israeli ‘constitution’ I was thinking about the Law of Return which is limited to those able to prove their Jewish heritage and is clearly not applicable to Palestinians who were dispossessed of their land.
Although public positions are open to Palestinian people nobody seriously believes that the Israeli army will ever be led by a Palestinian, any more than the police or army would be. Those Palestinians who have acquired high office in public life will surely struggle to justify their position to the average Palestinian who are likely to see them as ‘useful idiots’ for the Zionist regime.
Threatening, inflammatory language is not confined to Hamas whose official statements cover quite a large range of Arab opinion, some of which have agreed to recognise the State of Israel under certain conditions. In western media we are normally served up the ultra Hamas line alongside the more moderate Israeli political line in the hope this will discredit Hamas. This happens even as Israeli rockets are landing in Gaza, when the facts speak a little differently from the rhetoric.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 14 Jun 05:25
Geez, this guy absolutely nails it. I had never heard of Richard Boyd Barrett before, but goodness, this is impressive. Every sentence a gem...
Predictably, the Israeli Ambassador responded with the tiresome old claim that the speaker was anti-Semitic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNUp3hGEPHk
|
|
|
|
|
|
