Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Part 5: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

999 replies

AndHarry · 04/08/2014 22:41

New thread again.

Thread 1 - started when 3 Israeli boys were found murdered.

Thread 2 - in which we mainly discussed Operation Protective Edge.

Thread 3 - in which we continued to discuss Operation Protective Edge, the wider conflict and international involvement.

Thread 4 - in which Operation Protective Edge was examined further and we looked at the different views from inside Israel and the international community.

Another reminder of the Mumsnet Talk Guidelines.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
dingalong · 14/08/2014 19:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

QnBoudi · 14/08/2014 19:46

Find it interesting that the warning eran efrati issued on one of the earlier threads has already come to pass in ferguson. I mean that US police forces taught how to 'manage unrest' by Israeli trainers are now applying that brute force against US protesters.

Sorry, this post is rather tangential, but god love the Palestinians for looking outward even from their hellish state of chaos and offering advice on how to survive tear gas attacks.

Wonder where those cannisters were produced and which companies developed/produced/distributed/profited from them.

QnBoudi · 14/08/2014 19:50

Sorry, efrati didn't issue a warning on mn it was in a video linked to in a thread. Hmm

Springheeled · 14/08/2014 20:03

Loved those tweets to ferguson from Palestine. We are all Palestinian

Springheeled · 14/08/2014 20:35

I still don't know how to do links but do read Sarah Kenzior (?) Al Jazeera journalist on the 'telegenically dead', it's a beautiful piece doing the rounds on twitter.

Springheeled · 14/08/2014 20:41

qnboudi re the tear gas canisters, I was thinking of the Elbit occupation and have been thinking all week of the Robert Wyatt/ Elvis Costello song 'Shipbuilding'. Also, it's the 20th anniversary of the book 'What a Carve Up' by Jonathan Coe in which the arms dealer character gleefully arms all sides in Iraq and makes a killing. It all keeps making me think of the Naomi Klein book 'The Shock Doctrine' too which I keep going on about but which is essentially about the boot of neoliberalism stamping on the face of humanity.

Springheeled · 14/08/2014 20:45

m.aljazeera.com/story/201481182312870982
Attempting a link!!

Springheeled · 14/08/2014 20:46

Seconded dingalong- what can we call it for short?!

sergeantmajor · 14/08/2014 20:48

Springheeled - what do you mean by a "one or two state solution"?

Personally I am in favour of a two state solution. If it's a one state solution, it's either the present mess, or there's no Jewish state at all.

Which one state solution are you in favour of?

sergeantmajor · 14/08/2014 20:50

PS yellow stickers were placed on Israeli goods in Tesco

SamG76 · 14/08/2014 20:53

Springheeled - it seems we can agree on the 2 state solution. Do you think this would be acceptable to Hamas, though? And what happens when, a Palestinian state having been declared, they start digging tunnels into Israel? As for the 1 state solution, no one in the ME wants it. It's A favourite of Western so-called liberals who know it will lead to appalling bloodshed but just want not to have it on their conscience......

Springheeled · 14/08/2014 20:57

sergeantmajor by which group? (Yellow stickers)

QnBoudi · 14/08/2014 21:14

Interesting books, thx, springheeeled. Will have to look them out.

Been working on my banners for Saturdays demo in Liverpool. Taken a leaf out of PR guru nutanyahu's book and going for:

"How long for justice? Hillsborough: 25 yrs; Palestine: 66yrs and counting."
"Liverpool tells Gaza: You'll never walk alone"

Not the snappiest of slogans but should make sense to many Scousers.

PigletJohn · 14/08/2014 21:20

A quick google found reference to this news item

www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4449775,00.html

from 2013

Possibly it was mentioned in UK mainstream media.

Backinthering · 14/08/2014 21:32

sergeantmajor I have always favoured a one-state solution. Basically - entire land area of current Israel/Palestine. Equal rights for all citizens and right to return for all displaced Palestinians living, as refugees or otherwise, in other countries.

dingalong · 14/08/2014 21:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Springheeled · 14/08/2014 21:42

Two state is very hard to envisage- how could both states be equal? Would they still have a flipping great wall? How would Palestinians be able to move freely from Gaza to the West Bank? Or would the land be divided again? Where would the settlers go?

dingalong · 14/08/2014 21:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SamG76 · 14/08/2014 21:51

Binational states not really in vogue at the moment. Maybe you should try to recreate Czechoslovakia, Indonesia/e Timor and Yugoslavia first. It's laughable to think it might work in the ME.

dingalong · 14/08/2014 21:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tiggersreturn · 14/08/2014 22:12

Yrupita

You said

"We have had so many posters on here who appear and have tried to derail the topics by deflection and brought up Syria, Iraq etc etc. all because they do not want there to be criticism of Israel. Then they disappear."

In your view I am probably one of those posters.

What I see on this thread is rather different.

I see a few people who are genuinely ignorant of the background and the history.

I see many who see death and war and look no deeper than that and believe the sides with the most deaths must be in the right.

I see people who concentrate on this conflict and throw rage at it in a disproportionate way they do not do at any other conflict.

I see people who believe that if only Israel went back to the 1948 borders all problems would miraculously go away.

I see people who believe Israel shouldn't exist and if it didn't the whole problem would just go away. And it feels like a large chunk of these threads are dominated by people who think this. If you prod that line a bit deeper you get to Jews are a problem, send them back to where they came from or just annihilate them. And that is anti-semitism.

Every time I have tried to put anything different forward, including an article by a Pakistani Canadian it is either ignored or shot down with a variety of techniques and such concerted venom that I find it really uncomfortable to read the hatred emanating from these threads.

People ask why no one posts pro-Israel things on these threads. It is because every time you do you get flamed to such an extent that there is only so much I can take at one go. Particularly when in RL I am dealing with examples of real physical anti-semitism.

I do not talk to anyone non-Jewish in RL about this because I am too scared to discover that they might also share that latter view.

So I will post one last thing after this which pretty much sums up my views and most of the Jews I know. And by the way I am a Jew, orthodox and a zionist. And by zionist I mean I believe in the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland in Israel, not that if I lived in Israel I'd vote for Netanyahu. I'd probably have gone for Yesh Atid in the last election.

tiggersreturn · 14/08/2014 22:12

ONCE AGAIN ISRAEL FINDS IT HAS NO ALTERNATIVE by Daniel Finkelstein
The Gaza offensive has been a humanitarian and diplomatic catastrophe – but the other options were insupportable
My grandfather was not a Zionist. No, I should go further. He opposed the Zionists, fought them politically. He even wrote a book on the subject, A Critical Journey Through Palestine, which, within a few months of its publication in 1927, went through three editions.
Alfred Wiener had two objections to the Zionist idea. The first was simply – who on earth would want to live in Tel Aviv (or even, heaven forfend, a kibbutz) when they could live in Berlin? What sort of future was that for the Jews? Not one for him, certainly. It would be dangerous, impoverished and difficult.
The second was that he was an Arabist, a serious scholar of Arab history and culture, and thought that the Zionists were condescending to the Arabs, failing to take seriously enough their nationalist ambitions. He wondered whether it would ever be possible for a Jewish state in Palestine to live in peace.
He resented the Zionists for addressing the German Jew “as though he were in banishment”. Being a German and a Jew belonged together, he argued vehemently, and the Jews should stay in Germany. Germany, not Palestine, was their homeland. This, despite the fact that he was already adopting the role for which he is best known, as the leading archivist and campaigner against German antisemitism.
History has shown many of my grandfather’s worst forebodings to be correct. The Zionists had indeed underestimated Arab nationalism and the ambitions and rights of those people who already lived in Palestine. Life would indeed be difficult in Israel for the pioneers and peace impossible to come by.
Yet within six years of publishing his book, my grandfather had to flee Germany to live his life in banishment. The alternative to Zionism that he proposed turned out to be no alternative. Being a German and a Jew did not belong together. Six million of Europe’s nine million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, including my grandmother. In other words, he was right, but also spectacularly wrong.
This example conditions my response to the terrible events in Israel and Gaza these past few weeks.
It is impossible to view the death of so many women and children without being aghast, without seeing it as a dreadful failure. It is a moral disaster. It is a diplomatic catastrophe. Yet it is also impossible to stop there. Just as it is not enough to stop after considering my grandfather’s case against the German Zionists without considering what happened to the alternative he was proposing.
What are the choices for Israel? Let’s start at the end of one of Douglas Alexander’s press releases. The shadow foreign secretary finishes his statements on Gaza with the assertion that “Palestinian statehood is not a gift to be given, but a right to be recognised”. In so far as that means anything, I strongly agree with it. The Palestinians must have a homeland, they have a right to a homeland, in which they can live in prosperity and peace.
As most people agree, this should be broadly consistent with the borders that existed before the 1967 war. And Israel has made the creation of such a state considerably more difficult by its disastrously wrong and ill-considered decision to allow Jewish settlements to be built outside these borders.
Yet in this formulation, there lies a clue. And the clue tells you that establishing this Palestinian right, much as I passionately believe in it, will not be enough. It won’t be enough to ensure that Israel doesn’t have to wage unthinkable wars to protect itself.
The clue is in the idea of returning to the 1967 borders. Because there was a time when Israel lived within those borders, wasn’t there? It lived within them before 1967. And what happened? They had to fight successive wars, in 1948, 1967 and then again in 1973 to be allowed to live inside the borders. It was during the last two wars that it took the land as buffers against invasion. The war against Israel is not caused by the occupation. The occupation is caused by the war against Israel.
And for all that I support a Palestinian state, would its creation really mean peace in the Middle East even if it left Israel alone? The peace that emulates the internal affairs of which neighbour? Egypt? Syria? Lebanon? Iraq? Iran?
I, of course, supported Israel’s withdrawal from occupying Gaza. But unfortunately it has made things worse, not better, and has seen more innocent people die. The response to this has simply been to argue that Israel must “end the blockade”. And, naturally, anything that can safely be done to allow trade and relax restrictions should be done. It is, however, hardly possible to suggest to a country that its best response to a force that is firing rockets at it and building tunnels to allow invasion, is to remove limitations on movement of people and goods.
Alongside all this, there is, of course, another choice. That is to allow Hamas to fire rockets and build tunnels, and to do nothing. Israel would be required to put up with a few civilian deaths, the chance of many more and the need for everyone in the country to rush to air raid shelters all the time. Yet in return it would occupy the high ground and might expect the support of the international community.
To set out this option explicitly is to reveal its absurdity. No democratic government could survive advocating such a policy. And even if they could, it wouldn’t work. Let’s assume (a very big assumption) that failing to respond to Hamas did indeed seize the high ground. Would doing that help? Would the international community protect Israel, if Israel did not protect itself?
Ask the Palestinian refugees starved to death by Assad in a camp outside Damascus as we did nothing. Ask the minorities in Iraq. The West hasn’t the will to intervene and certainly wouldn’t do so before the Jews were being beheaded in the streets or being buried alive.
None of this, not one word, lessens my sorrow, my despair at every Palestinian life that has been lost. Things cannot go on like this. It is a tragedy, it is insupportable.
But Jews are always being told they should learn the lesson of the Holocaust. And yes, one of its most important lessons is that man is capable of great evil and we must struggle against that urge. Yet alongside it Jews learnt the lesson that world opinion didn’t save us. And that by the time the army liberated the camps, most of the people were already dead. Never again.

halfdrunkcoffee · 14/08/2014 22:14

With regard to the one or two state solution, this is a version of my post on another thread:

If I were Supreme Commander of the World, I would put the following options on the table:

  1. A two-state solution, comprising Israel within the pre-1967 borders and a sovereign state of Palestine consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. Jerusalem to be shared between the two countries. All Israeli settlers to leave the West Bank, unless they are happy to live under Palestinian jurisdiction. However, I don't know exactly how the distribution of the land between the two states would be worked out fairly and how Gaza and the West Bank could be linked (the UN partition plan was at the time rejected by the Arab League). Security wall to be pulled down.
  1. A one-state solution: a binational secular state (or one observing both Muslim and Jewish holidays and traditions) in which anyone of any religion could live.
  1. A three-state solution: Israel and Palestine as described in Option 1. Citizens have free movement between the two states (as in EU member states) and can choose to live and work in either.

I would also make all countries in which Palestinian refugees and their descendants live - I think they are the only ones to have hereditary refugee status - grant them full citizenship (or dual citizenship with Palestine) and equal rights. With regard to the right of return, I don't know how it would work in practice if some five million people wanted to go back and live in Israel, which is already densely populated - although a right of return would be just that, a right; presumably not everyone would exercise it. I would also instigate a big compensation package for refugees.

halfdrunkcoffee · 14/08/2014 22:21

X-posted with your article Tiggersreturn. The context of the wider Middle East needs to be taken into account when trying to come up with workable solution to this interminable conflict.

edamsavestheday · 14/08/2014 22:34

There is always an alternative to war crimes. Danny Finkelstein should know that. Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime.