Israel has bombed Syria

(58 Posts)
NicholasTeakozy Wed 30-Jan-13 19:32:20

According to Channel4 News either an aircraft or drone has 'hit a facility' in Syria. shock

Are they trying to start WW3?

Kungfutea Wed 20-Feb-13 23:19:47

That's a strange question since the Jews do have an ancestral homeland.

And there's a difference between significantly persecuted and genocidally exterminated.

Israel has a right to exist and the Jewish people have a right to one small country in a portion of their ancestral homeland.

Saski Wed 20-Feb-13 22:44:18

So, do you think that any significantly persecuted ethnic minority not having a logical homeland should be granted a homeland?

Kungfutea Tue 19-Feb-13 13:22:14

1) There's certainly an Arab identify but a Palestinian one is a very modern invention. That's not to delegitimize it, a national identity has developed over the last 40 years which is fair enough. What I am saying is simply historical fact.

2) The peace treaty did address the settlements - those in the Sinai were completely dismantled and evacuated. See what happens when you behave reasonably? Why you think Egypt should tie their fate with the Palestinians who at that point were childishly refusing even to accept Israel's existence is very odd. Sadat was Egyptian. Interesting to note that even Mursi hasn't revoked the treaty. Settlements are A problem but they are not THE problem. Israel evacuated every last settlement from Gaza. They got kassam missiles in exchange.

3) Land for peace is called compromise. The jewish nationalist aspirations were just as legitimate as the Palestinian ones and they were willing to compromise. The Palestinians/Arabs had many opportunities to compromise, they refused time and time ago. They also had transjordan let's not forget. It was all or nothing. They fucked it up again and again and again.

4) the Palestinians were not responsible for the holocaust, of course not. But their leaders, like the mufti of Jerusalem, were big fans of the nazis and the Arabs told the British that if they let in Jews fleeing Europe, they'd cut off the oil. Nice.

Saski Tue 19-Feb-13 10:18:15

So, the fact that Arab people inhabit a region for centuries - but the borders are drawn and re-drawn around them - this means that they have no real identity? Is that how you derive your own identity, by the way? This is complete nonsense.

You'll note that I put quotes around "peace" - not "treaty" - of course that's an example of Egypt behaving sensibly from your view. It was a great deal for Egypt. The problem is the "peace" part because it didn't address the settlements. Why don't I say it again: the problem is the settlements!

Again and again you hear this - the problem with Palestine is of their own making, had they only agreed to give up 45% of their land when the offer was made, they wouldn't have gotten themselves into this mess. How is that reasonable? And again, the subtext of your post: if Palestine had just given the land to the Jews like they were asked, they could have prevented the holocaust. How about placing blame where it's due?

nannyof3 Mon 18-Feb-13 00:27:08

My cousin lives there...

His a photographer... Crazy man hmm

Kungfutea Mon 18-Feb-13 00:25:39

You need to read more carefully saski.

1) i mentioned the holocaust in response to writehand who actually brought it up first, although without a doubt the holocaust clearly demonstrated the need for a Jewish homeland since if Israel had existed in 1939, perhaps six million wouldn't have perished. At least there was somewhere to go for all hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled by Arab countries (or do they not count?)

2) Sadat is not an example of Palestinians behaving unreasonably since Sadat was Egyptian and Sadat successfully negotiated a peace treaty (no need for quotation marks - the treaty is real and has lasted over 30 years) where Israel gave up all of the Sinai in exchange for peace. So the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is an example of Egypt behaving reasonably and doing very well out of it.

3) the Peel treaty gave the Arabs way more than half (and let's not forget that a few years previously all of Transjordan had been carved away from mandatory Palestine to create jordan -the true Palestinian homeland if you really look). But, hey, they had another chance to mess it up with the UN partition plan which they rejected, and then again in 1967 with the three nos of Khartoum and then again with the second intifada. They thought they'd get it all and throw the Jews into the sea, they didn't and they made the same mistake over and over again. The Palestinians are tragic, for sure, but much of it is their own making.

4) I never mentioned the bible. But there is no doubt that Israel is the Jewish ancestral homeland and since being expelled by the Romans (historically documented fact) have nevertheless had a continuous presence in the holy land (historically documented fact) and always always prayed to return, always turning towards Jerusalem in prayer. Even saladin recognized the jewish connection and invited jews to live in jerusalem.

5) The palestinians would never have been displaced if they wouldn't have declared war on Israel and attacked them. They certainly suffered but it would never have happened if they would have worked with the Jews in peace. The Arabs who remained became citizens of Israel. And the Arab counties they fled to should have absorbed them (just like israel did to the jewish refugees expelled from arab countries) instead of leaving them festering in camps, how ridiculous.

6) there was no Palestinian independence movement or real national identity until the 1970s. The residents of the west bank and gaza strip were Jordanian and Egyptian respectively prior to 1967. Anyone, Jew or Arab, born in mandatory Palestine was effectively a Palestinian. Palestine during the ottoman era was simply a district of south syria. Palestine as a national movement is a modern phenomenon, not sure why this is hard to understand.

Saski Sun 17-Feb-13 21:19:57

Kungfutea - reading through this thread I doubt that anyone here thinks that Israel was an "overnight" post-WW2 gift to to Jews. The reason I mention reparations is because inevitably the holocaust is invoked whenever these discussions arise (in this case, by you), and indeed the zionist movement gained huge traction post-WW2 - so it's disingenuous to try to separate the two and tut tut people for not understanding their history of the region - because the holocaust is constantly revisited in this context (I'll agree with you on one point that I think you're making, albeit after you raised the point, which is that it's irrelevant).

That you mention the Peel partition and Sadat's "peace" treaty as examples of how the Palestinians have behaved so unreasonably is revealing. The Palestinians turned down the "offer" to give away half their land and refused - so they'll pay forever. Of course you have factions unwilling to negotiate when this is the narrative!

You're going to have to explain to me how the existing inhabitants of Palestine were not displaced by the creation of Israel. Maybe you could also explain how Palestinian identity is a "modern" invention - do you mean maybe "overlapping"?

Jerusalem has seen many peoples pass through (and conquer) and it's meaningful for all three of the "book" religions. None the historical context can justify modern Israel. This is a matter of property rights (and human rights) - not some biblical right to return (which, even if you think the bible is a basis for property rights - is contentious even among biblical scholars!).

Kungfutea Fri 15-Feb-13 16:26:59

Here you go, Saski:

The three No's of Khartoum (Sept 1967):

1) No peace with Israel
2) No recognition of Israel
3) No negotiations with Israel

Does that seem reasonable to you? That's what Israel is dealing with. But all Israel's fault? Right?

However, when Sadat did make overtures to Israel, he got ALL of the Sinai back in return for a peace treaty (and was then murdered for the privilege). How about a bit of recognition for that?

If the Arabs would have admitted that they can't wipe Israel out in 1967 and actually sat down and negotiated, they'd have got all of the West Bank and Gaza. The settler movement only began later and on a small scale. Now it's all one big mess sad

Kungfutea Fri 15-Feb-13 16:06:31

That's absolutely not true and incorrect, Saski.

1) The existing inhabitants were not 'displaced' due to Zionism. In fact, there could have already been a Palestine (or some version of it since Palestinian natinal identity is a rather modern phenomenon) a long time ago if they'd have been a bit more sensible.

2) Israel was not 'created' for Jews from all over Europe. Where do you get this stuff from? It was the Jewish ancestral homeland for which the Jews were expelled by the Romans in 70 CE and finally in 135 CE but there has always been a Jewish presence in Israel and Jews have always turned to Israel. Jews are a people as well as a religion. It's comparable to the Kurds wanting a Kurdistan.

3) Israel is not 'remediation' or punishment for the holocaust. If it were, why not give the Zionists a nice piece of Germany? The Zionist movement started long before the second world war. The holocaust simply added impetus to the necessity of a Jewish homeland.

4) Israel is surrounded by enemies who reject any Jewish presence in the Middle East. Just to remind you, what were the 'three nos' of Khartoum about exactly? Who rejected the Peel partition plan? Who rejected the UN partition plan? Who tried to destroy Israel in 1948? Who tried to destroy Israel in 1967? Who tried to destroy Israel in 1973? I'm not saying Israel is blameless but to accuse Israel of having enemies of its own making just by the pure fact of its existence is rather disingenuous. Withdrawing from the West Bank would be good in an ideal world but what would happen if Israel did? Look at Gaza! Israel withdrew from Gaza and Sderot and Ashkelon were in the firing line. Israel withdraws from the West Bank, as things stand at the moment, and you'll have most of Israel within range of the kassam missiles. No thank you! Israel's first responsibility is to its own citizens.

Saski Fri 15-Feb-13 15:11:10

The Israel and UK comparison is flawed. The UK wasn't created as a Christian homeland - it evolved as a Christian nation. Israel was created for Jews from all over Europe, displacing its existing inhabitants from the outset.

Important to remember that the slaughter of six million was at the hands of the Europeans - not the Palestinians. Why is the remediation theirs to pay?

Israel is surrounded by enemies of its own making. Withdrawing from the occupied territories would be a great step towards peace.

Kungfutea Thu 14-Feb-13 18:46:30

This reminds me of something I saw going around FB during the Gaza fighting a few months back where two Syrian fighters, despairing at the way the world isn't responding to all the atrocities and massacres occurring there, suggest that Israel kill a few of them - and then people might start to notice.

Legitimate criticism of Israel is fine but the vitriol and vilification in what is a very complex situation is really rather frightening.

Writehand - many Israelis also believe that the creation of a Palestinian state would also be a huge mistake (and I'd agree under current circumstances - look at what happened after Israel withdrew from Gaza!). And since you're opposed to 'essentially religious' nations, I assume you'd apply that principle to the UK as well since the UK is defined as a 'Christian nation'? So maybe the creation of the UK was a huge mistake? You also clearly have no idea of the history of Israel and the Jewish people and the Zionist movement within that since Israel did not suddenly appear overnight as a make-up gift for the slaughter of six million.

Well, there we have it.

Writehand Tue 05-Feb-13 14:41:51

I'd agree that Palestine needs to be a free state as soon as possible. I can understand that Israel feels surrounded by enemies, but I think it would not only clarify and settle things, but that Israel would be in a much stronger position if it stopped breaching UN and human rights issues and behaved in a mature and equitable way towards the Palestinians.

I personally feel the creation of the state of Israel was a huge mistake, but it's done now, and we can only work with what is. I can see the world felt that, post-Holocaust, there were amends to be made, but making an essentially religious nation was not a clever idea, and it's caused no end of problems.

Surely the logical conclusion to what I'm saying is that Palestine should be a free state as soon as possible.

Yes, the pro-Israel news lobby is probably nasty and aggressive. Not as aggressive, mind, as say the Iranian or pakistani govt or those who say cartoonist and film makers and writers must die, and then actually execute them, but I see what you are saying.

It is tricky: Israel is the only jewish state of course, so i can see it's difficult to disentangle Judaism from Israel and also being pro Israel but not pro new settlements. Plenty of people manage it but plenty of people don't, eg that liberal mp just last week. giles coren wrote about it well this weekend I thought.

Writehand Mon 04-Feb-13 18:56:01

I've been involved in a news story about Israel. I was amazed at the nastiness. There is a very well-organised and aggressive lobby in the UK which defends Israel regardless of its conduct. If anything appears in the media that they don't like you get hell in a handcart from these guys.

There are also a lot of Jewish people in this country who feel quite differently, and hate what Israel is doing. They are not as well-organised, though, and less vitriolic in their speech -- at least that was my experience.

The thing that really gets me is people describing anti-Israeli feeling as anti-Semitic. It ain't. It it were then lots & lots of Jewish people are guilty of it.

I think many of us are scared of the tension between Israel and Iran. Any Israeli involvement in Syria is likely to worsen that.

Clytaemnestra Mon 04-Feb-13 18:47:02

I think there is a big difference from being against the treatment of the Palestinians and pro Hezbollah!

The logical conclusion to what you're saying is that is better to keep ALL Palestinians oppressed than let them self determine their own government in case the one they end up with oppresses women. I would agree that it's a possibility, however all the Palestinian women that I have ever seen interviewed or featured on news articles, even those suffering from oppression from Palestine men, are pretty clear they'd like Israel to stop killing them and to have their own country as a priority. I remember watching a news story on a young Palestine woman who had taken over her father's fishing business and was having problems with the other (male) fishermen as she had no husband. She wanted Palestine to be free, and I'm pretty sure she had her eyes open about how her society would be. I wouldn't take that right away from her.

Israel is streets ahead on equality. That doesn't mean they deserve a pass when they poison a village's well though, or bomb a hospital.

Ooh, I wonder what phonem said.

(I can just imagine.)

Sorry I didn't reply to your thoughtful analysis earlier, clyt. i do intellectually agree with some aspects of what you say, yet in my heart I still just don't get it.

I suppose I look at the world through a feminist prism - and I see every country in the Middle East (except for one) engaged in oppression of women. It seems that no doubt Egypt soon will be going further that way, and when Palestinians do get a fully functioning state -which I hope they do - then we will see the women struggle even more there too.

I just can't understand why Western women are so unengaged with that and will instead support some of those "We are all Hezbollah now" who would take away all women's rights.

phonem260 Sun 03-Feb-13 22:28:38

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

wintertimeisfun Fri 01-Feb-13 09:25:43

i think clytaemnestra has a good point and fwiw i am a jew. sometimes i get somewhat angry with israel, one of the reasons is because i as a jew am in the firing line with anti jewish sentiment as alot of people club israel and jews in one bag.

Monty27 Thu 31-Jan-13 23:34:32

confused

littleducks Thu 31-Jan-13 22:59:43

I think Clytaemnestra is right, it seems closer to 'home' when Israel is involved

Clytaemnestra Thu 31-Jan-13 22:44:21

I suspect, for the most part because their behavior affects us directly in a way which other middle eastern states don't. If Libya kicks off against Syria, we'll all be very sad about the atrocities, but we won't really CARE. In the same way Syria is a tragedy at a remote level, but doesn't actually have any impact on our day to day lives, so for the most part we're very sad about it but it doesn't keep is up at night with worry.

There is a massive fear, however well grounded it might be or not, that Israel will drag the US and Europe into a war and Russia and/or China will take the other side and nuclear weapons will start being thrown. That is the kind of thing that keeps people up at night. So they resent Israel for potentially putting them in this position. Israel is also an ungrateful ally, their diplomacy comes across as all take and no give. They bomb who they like, ignore diplomacy apparently when they feel like it, expand the settlements in retaliation for perceived diplomatic slights and generally seem to be deliberately objectionable. If foreign policy it criticized it is blamed on anti-Semitism, and that makes people really angry. Combine this with their habit of taking the moral high ground when they have no right to it anymore, and blaming everyone else for all their issues, I can see why Israel does inspire more anger. They don't behave any worse in the things they do on the ground, but they make it our problem too, don't accept any responsibility for anything and give us nothing in return.

No, no, not at all, and I certainly don't think all criticism of Israel comes down to anti- semitism, of course not.

And yet, and yet, something about the way the British ie. many of my friends, really get in an absolute fury over Israel that they do not seem to about any other countries that really are behaving far far worse, and for much less provocation, and with far worse rights for women etc, etc really mystifies me.

I suppose I can't understand why people don't hold the rest of the world - and particularily the arab states in the same area - to the same standard that they condemn Israel for failing to meet.

Clytaemnestra Thu 31-Jan-13 21:22:05

I find it sad that they are unable to recognize that their settlements, their abuse of native Palestinians and their aggressive, arrogant rhetoric mean that everyone else will eventually lose all sympathy with them. And I find it grating that they expect to be treated as a blameless innocent victim in all of it, and blame anti-Semitism, rather than actually wondering if maybe there might just be a bit of a point to why all their allies are becoming sick of them.

Do you think people who object to the IRA are anti-Catholic? And are objecting to their campaign because they hate Catholics?

I genuinely have never seen anything near the amount of rage, at even say, the taliban or Assad, or iran, etc, etc, that i have seen directed at israel.

Greensleeves, I apologise if I missed your threads condemning the disgusting behaviour of so many Arab states.

I find the disproportionate argument interesting - I wonder what the proportionate response is? It is tough when your enemy hides among civilians and wants you not to exist. I don't know what the response should be.

Clyt, You find it 'grating' that a country that has been persecuted has no insight into the fact they are persecuting others? I find it sad that everyone is still trying to wipe them out.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now