to not understand how you can fire missiles targeting civilians and it not be a war crime

[Itsaboatjack]

now I'm not especially knowledgable about the problems in the middle east but surely firing missiles into a city intentionally killing civilians is some kind of war crime?

Morsi has CLOSED the Rafah crossing. Why don't they allow the Palestinians to cross into Egypt if they want to leave the Gaza strip?

And I also wonder if there is a one state solution if this what the Jewish minority would have to look forward to...
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/23/gaza-christians-hamas-cancelled-christmas

I actually do have sympathy with the one state solution. In an ideal world, maybe it'd work, I'm not keen on states revolving around relgiion to begin with. But, as I said above, I'd also like to see the Western wall, El Aqsa mosque and Church of the Holy Sepulcher bulldozed and Disneyland Middle East built in its place. But it's got as much chance of happening as a one state solution, especially a genuinely democratic and secular one.

Stories like what? Morsi closing the borders?

I think you can reasonably blame Israel for a lot but it's not responsible for the lack of democracy in Arab countries! I think you might need to ask what features there are in Arab society which prevent the development of democratic institutions (which goes beyond just elections).

Maybe the arab leaders aren't acting because the Palestinians have contributed to their own situation by starting the second intifada?

(Although I don't doubt that Fatah are corrupt, BILLIONS of dollars in aid has poured into the territories but you don't see too much evidence of it other than in swiss bank accounts but at least Abbas is a moderate)

I do agree with you regarding the historical relations crescentmoon. The Arabs certainly didn't massacre six million Jews! And I do take your point about the Palestinians paying the price for European anti-semitism. I think there is an element of truth in that. But I think the Palestinians were also the authors of their own tragedy.

If there were a one state, I'd want it to be secular and fully democratic. It's not going to happen.

The only pragmatic solution which has support among moderates is the two state solution. It's the only way forward. The Israeli settler movement needs to be dismantled, for sure. And I say this for Israel's sake more than anything else because I think the settler movement and the occupation is destroying israel from within.

But Israel needs a partner on the other side. And Hamas is not that partner, at least not yet. Then again, it was Ariel Sharon who withdrew Israel from Gaza, and because of his reputation as a hardliner, he was able to do so. Certainly Morsi is behaving more pragmatically that I would have expected given his earlier rhetoric.

Really? It was likud which gave back the Sinai and it was likud which evacuated Gaza. In Israel, it's often the right wing which managed to acheive peace because they know they'll have the support of the left wing so they can get things through parliament.

ElaineBenes Mon 19-Nov-12 14:15:37
Gilad Sharon has as much influence as Mark Thatcher.

You mean SIR Mark Thatcher who was set up for life and had a privileged lifestyle because of this parents and was able to set up businesses and have access to certain industries, undeniably because his mother and father helped to open doors or enabled him to have the right contacts. This would be the same Mark Thatcher who had a significant role in an attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea, for which he was fined and received a four-year suspended jail sentence. This is the same Mark Thatcher who is supposed to be worth £60million pounds from his businesses which included arms dealing. The same Mark Thatcher in this article here

Gilad wrote the article in The Jerusalem Post, which says it is Israel's best selling English language daily newspaper and most read English website. Do you think if he was just an ordinary 'reservist and farmer' do you think he would be given the column inches in the same way?

So a) your comparison to try and suggest Gilad has no influence is astonishingly ignorant and b) actually proves that the sons of former PMs tend to have significance regardless of whether they hold office or not and have influence that reaches far beyond that of anyone else in exactly the same position. In fact being able to claim 'ordinary' ness actually adds to his influence somewhat ironically.

REALLY REALLY bad defence of your point, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? I specifically chose Mark Thatcher as an example because he has been in the public eye rather than, say, James Major or Nicky Blair. Mark Thatcher could write an article in the Daily Mail. It doesn't mean he is influential in British society or in British public opinion.

Since I've lived in Israel for many years, am part Israeli and have many family and friends in Israel, I can tell you that Gilad Sharon is not influential. I'm not sure why this would constitute 'astonishing ignorance'. How many Israelis do you know? Do you speak Hebrew? I would suggest that I do know a little more about Israeli society than you do!

And I do wonder if you've been looking at Hamas statements and commentary in Palestinian papers and have equal censure for them? I suspect not unfortunately.

mark Thatcher is held in contempt - he has no influence with the public who think he is a joke.

You know more than me. Ok. I know my place then.

Well, I didn't accuse you of 'astonishing ignorance'.

Just asked you how many Israelis you actually know and if you speak Hebrew.

Judging by your answer here, I'd say that the answer to my questions is ZERO and NADA.

In which case, perhaps your knowledge of Israeli society is rather limited and accusing someone who has been part of Israeli society for many years of astonishing ignorance is hubris in the extreme. But I see you've acknowledged that so we can move on.

Couple of ideas:

1. The public face of governments and 'terrorist organisations' do not express the behind the scenes negotiations. One of the fall outs of the Manning Wikipedia leaks were the dissonance between the Palestinian leadership public face and the current negotiations. It was so embarrassing that they had to publicly restate hard line positions.

1. The construction of victim hood by the Israeli government and also the Palestinian people. These are positions that they take to gain support within their relative diasporas. American Jews are strong supporters of Israel as were the American Irish community of the IRA. Palestinians have to garner support within the Middle East, they become a proxy for regional relations.

1. Since the 'Arab Spring' the Middle East has become more volatile, too early to say how this will affect Israel.

1. It is naive to think of all Muslims as being the same, different communities are nuanced both culturally and through religiousity.

Not read the whole thread but Britain were totally guilty of this during the second world war where civilian deaths rose to 50% of all deaths before that I think it was around 10%.

Britain purposely targeted German's to try and make the civilians lose faith and turn against their government.

During the second war killing civilians was not perceived as a war crime, this phrase is a relatively new phenomenon (treaty of Rome - setting up International criminal court in 2001)

ElaineBenes Mon 19-Nov-12 16:47:53
Well, I didn't accuse you of 'astonishing ignorance'.

But you are displaying it by saying that Galid has no influence... but there you go. We wouldn't be talking about him, if he didn't have a famous daddy. His power goes beyond the borders of Israel. It doesn't actually matter what languages you speak then.

But yeah, be dismissive of him. And if you read what I said about the influence Mark Thatcher has, it doesn't have to be to the general public. You can be considered a joke but still have considerable influence. Power and influence is multi faceted. But as a rule being the offspring of someone in particular awards you with power that others have to earn and learn to understand (stupidity and making stupid remarks therefore tends to come a lot more naturally).

You're really determined to attribute power to Gilad Sharon, aren't you? Why? He has none. He's a writer, he writes his opinion. He's not influential.

You've admitted you know nothing about Israeli society so I suggest you let it go now.

unfortunately it is true that violence often works, crescentmoon, on both sides. I would prefer otherwise.

I also agree that Israel has a collective responsibility for having voted in Likud (as well as Shas and Yisrael Beteinu who are even worse) as much as the Palestinians have for voting in Hamas. It would indeed be hypocritical to say otherwise and I don't believe I have done so. Israelis have moved to the right as Palestinians have turned to religious extremism. It depresses me beyond belief.

I don't think israel wants Fatah as partners because they are corruptible although I would agree that they have exploited their corruptibility which is actually rampant throughout Palestinian society. But, still, better a corrupt moderate than a corrupt hard liner!

Actually, crescentmoon, when I think of it, many Israelis support the separation wall because it works. And it does. The number of suicide attacks decreased enormously after the Palestinians were simply kept out of Israel. So the Israelis also say 'Well, peace talks never stopped the suicide bombs, a wall did'. See the similarity?

Hardly a long term solution for either side.

Yep, I agree with what you're saying for the most part regarding the path of the wall and many Israelis do as well. I have Israeli friends who demonstrated with the Palestinians in Bil'in against the appropriation of lands for the wall. It should have been built on Israeli land if it was going to be built.

Fatah, by the way, are not some doveish organization. Abbas is pretty moderate and pragmatic (especially regarding his own bank account!). But Arafat, who started the second intifada and derailed the peace process, was also Fatah (and also corrupt). He was no moderate really and, in my opinion, did not want to compromise genuinely.

The Palestinians certainly had the moral imperative before the second intifada and they would have achieved their aims eventually if they would have stuck to the path of negotiations. The settlements are illegal and immoral in my opinion and many Israelis agree. If the Palestinians wouldn't have started the second intifada, they'd have achieved even more support for their cause from Israelis and in the wider world. The second intifada undermined and derailed the whole thing, led by Yasser Arafat representing Fatah.