Part 3: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[AndHarry]

New thread as part 2 is nearly full.

Part 1 is here.

Part 1 was started when 3 Israeli boys were found murdered.

Part 2 is here.

In part 2 we mainly discussed the legality and human consequences of Operation Protective Edge.

Springheeled, I very much doubt that children's literature of the sort you describe will ever do any good.

After all, look at all the children's books on the topic of Jewish children during the Nazi era, 'The Diary of Anne Frank' for instance, but also many well written fictional accounts of the suffering of children, and films like 'The Boy in the Striped Pajamas', etc., and yet many recent protests have featured horrifying expressions of out and out anti-Semitism.

Even before the current crisis, Europe was rocked by election results that showed the openly anti-Semitic far right making ominous electoral gains, preceded of course by the very shocking and irresponsible support in western Europe and in the US for the toppling of a democratically elected government in Ukraine by militants of the far right Svoboda and Right Sector that have direct links to the Ukrainian Nazi Banderites, and who marched through Ukrainian cities with banners proudly proclaiming their shame.

the ball should be in Israels court to sort out the main grievances..and for starters to stop denying they are not occuping Gaza just because theyre not physically in there,.then no rockets, baby steps, forget the over and above arguments,and move on, better than bloody wanton destruction that solves NOTHING but creates more problems, the Palestinian authorities should play too in give when given, seems to me no one REALLY has been giving peace a chance and the big player IS Israel whichever way you cut it so they best get their finger out and maybe their international standing will rise and for the best of reasons (with or rather without Netanyahoo) bye for now

Emma, are you disputing the existence of rockets?

If so, you are in a minority of one.

Of course. Because voting in a terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of the Jews and Israel is soooooooo peaceful. Especially seeing as they were voted in after Israel dismantled all settlements in gaza to pave the way to peace.

Yeah, the ball is in Israel's court. Not.

Springheeled, this is the sort of recent anti-Semitism I was thinking about.

Or perhaps this is an example of media bias?

Emma, if you only get your facts from biased media then that explains your ignorance.

Add message | Report | Message poster mathanxiety Mon 28-Jul-14 15:28:07
Emma, are you disputing the existence of rockets?

If so, you are in a minority of one.

---

Err no I wasnt disputing them, no idea where you got that from

--

Add message | Report | Message poster KareninsGirl Mon 28-Jul-14 15:29:46
Of course. Because voting in a terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of the Jews and Israel is soooooooo peaceful. Especially seeing as they were voted in after Israel dismantled all settlements in gaza to pave the way to peace.

Yeah, the ball is in Israel's court. Not.
----
YES IT IS, and stop with the hate and lies, hamas are not the only ones in govt are they? And where does it say in the govt manifesto do they want to destroy Israel! Do keep up. and they shouldnt have been there in the first place, what a bloody cheek! :D that Israel did a favour moving out, gone now >>>>> stop your hate and blamin and punishing others who are not to blame for the horrible history and what happened to the Jewish people in the 40s, and then others will stop too, the deep wounds cant be healed with bombs against innocents! Shalom

Hamas' charter on destroying Israel:

fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

White Lightning and chips anyone?

karenin As you are so rightly appalled at terrorism, would you care to explain how you can reconcile yourself with the Zionist terrorism used to force the creation of the state of Israel? The bombing of the Royal David Hotel?

Hmmmm. This question of what constitutes a terrorist group or organisation. is there an internationally agreed definition? no, there is not. Interestingly enough just in the last couple of days I was listening to a report on R4 which explained the problems the UN is having with coming up with just such a definition.

I have just looked at the list of terrorist groups on Wiki and what is fascinating is that there is no single organisation which is recognised as a Terrorist group by more than a few countries. Hamas included. So really, it is a matter of perspective. It is not a given.

I don't agree with Hamas' methods and nor do I support their - alleged - commitment to the 'destruction ' of Israel. However I am equally opposed to the Israeli Govt's aggressively expansionist and racist practises which IMO amount to the deliberate and unswerving theft of land by force. Hamas is an elected body. Bibi is an elected leader. He sees Hamas a terrorists. Palestinians - civilians included - see Bibi and the IDF as an occupying force using massive brute force to ethnically cleanse them and steal their land.

So show me the difference someone.

Reports of a group of very young children being killed by air strikes whilst playing in a park. Also reports of air strikes at al Shifa hospital killing civilians and medical staff.

The children were playing during the eid festivities.

If this is true then it is absolutely fucking appalling. Shameful. I'm beyond disgusted.

Meanwhile in Israel the celebratory chants continue: electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/gaza-graveyard-sing-joyful-israeli-youths

I am so incensed and ashamed of these inhumane animals.

donnie I completely agree that the terrorism is a matter of perspective. I don't particularly see how categorising those who bear arms makes any difference. An innocent civilian killed by an 'army' is every bit as tragic and reprehensible as one killed by a 'terrorist'. I do not get the impression that math or karenin would agree that IDF killings are every bit as reprehensible as Hamas killings, not to mention significantly more numerous.

Karenin your link is from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. It's hardly an unbiased source of information.
Yes Hamas' original charter was for the destruction of Israel but the consensus is that is no longer their thinking. It's certainly not in their current ceasefire terms.
Israel on the other hand is actually, actively destroying Gaza. It's homes and infrastructure lie in ruins and over 1000 dead, mostly civilians.
You and the other apologists can argue black is white all you like, but I'm surprised you don't have at least a little shame in doing so in the face of such appalling loss of innocent life.
You also don't get to define for me who a terrorist is or isn't. The ANC was a terrorist organisation too once upon a time.

runes - I brought up the issue of Menachim Begin and the Stern gang's terrorist atrocities on one of the earlier threads. Begin founded Likud. This means Likud, technically speaking, was founded by a terrorist. Certainly I see little difference between Bibi and his race hate, and other terrorist groups.

And what do you know, the Israeli apologists were strangely quiet on the matter . Wonder why? Not that it matters. They are luckily in the minority here.

I do genuinely feel sorry for ordinary Israelis though, with people like him in the govt. They deserve our collective pity I suppose.

I know donnie. When I raised the issue of Zionist terrorism on another thread an apologist said we shouldn't be quick to label, even though two minutes earlier they argued that Thatcher wasn't harsh enough on the IRA. Unbelievable! It appears some people will go to any lengths to justify the murder of innocents so long as the perpetrators are on their side

Yes Backinthering - Hamas has been very outspoken these last few days about not fighting 'the Jews' but fighting 'the occupier'.

I think that if Bibi takes the view that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' then it is completely reasonable for Hamas to claim that 'defending itself against an occupying force' is their right.

runes

Apologists for violence do not feel obliged to answer, or even to acknowledge, awkward questions.

You might find they are much busier throwing abuse and slanted questions, than they are at giving answers.

Is "a Zionist" the same as "a Jew"

Which classification describes the people who dispossessed Arabs and seized their land?

The reason I ask, is that I saw a reference to anti-semitism on this thread early, being a link to a sign in a Belgian café window saying that Zionists were not admitted. It is certainly good news that we have not yet seen much sign of this sort of thing nearer home.

Now, I am glad that the poster was almost immediately taken down, and I imagine that Belgium has some kind of race hate laws that will be applied; but the website www.nydailynews.com/ which seems to love to shock, claimed that it was a "sign banning Jews"

I know that many Americans are not multilingual, but did the person posting this think that "sionistes" means Jews? What does she thing "juifs" means?

Certainly seems so piglet Great article in the Huffpost today about debunking Israeli myths m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5624401

PigletJohn - the article states:
A sign in Turkish and French announced, “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Jews are not under any circumstances,” the Jewish Forward reports. The French version of the sign replaced “Jews” with “Zionists,” according to the Jewish Forward. So it said Jews in Turkish but not French, apparently.

Oh I just love Mehdi Hassan - great link !