Part 6: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[AndHarry]

Sorry, lost the end of the thread there!

Thread 5

No it doesn't excuse violence or abuse. Most of the survivors of the holocaust I know (only a few of them are living in Israel, though) don't like what is happening but don't want to get in too deep discussions about it either. Also, it wasn't 50yrs ago- in counties like Yemen and Ethiopia, it's still ongoing, and thinking of Russia, Lebanon etc which wasn't long ago either, or what is currently happening in pretty much every country across Europe, with firebombings, death threats, swastikas, barring people from shops and so on.

But that's beside the point. It doesn't excuse what is happening in any way, shape or form and it shouldn't be allowed to, but I was responding to the point that the right to return was racist- presumably a point which could be made even if there was a two state solution or peace?

I think it's a narrow view to say we need no favouritism. It's like the people who say 'they don't see race' or 'they don't see gender'. It's a luxury to be able to say that. Around the world, we can't achieve peace and acceptance soon, maybe we never will, and therefore it is sensible to provide protection for those most at risk, to 'favour' them, if you will. I'm sure if French people were attacked repeatedly and in the same way, with the same risks for the future, there would be specific protection and I would support that. There needs to be special emphasis placed on groups who are most at risk- so Yazidis for example, or the special emphasis on women's rights around the world. Because while we all try to stop war, anti semitism, racism and so on, there will still be war, anti semitism and racism, and although we should build up towards a world where the right to return isn't seen as necessary by many Jews, including me, in the mean time, we need that protection. We can do both, but stopping human rights abuses will be a slow and gradual process and if we don't put in specific plans or ways of protecting people who anyone can see are highly like to need it, then those people will suffer when something does happen, it will build up quicker and it will lead to more misery and deaths.

In the same way, you could say, why focus on Israel and Palestine? Why not focus on world peace as a whole? Which would be stupid.

Israel' government are idiots (horrible idiots). If you want the international community to support you, then you stop attacks, put all military spending into defence and then make sure everyone knows how you're being attacked and how you're a victim of Hamas (which would be true, in that case).

Not saying that focussing on world peace is stupid, but not allowing special considerations and protections, like the right to return, would be stupid, as it would be putting people at serious risk in the future.

I believe the majority of people want the Palestinians to have their own state, both in world opinion and in Israeli society. (I don't have the stats to support this btw).

But if this Palestinian state were to supplant Israel, then you just replace one disenfranchised refugee people for another.

If the Palestinians were given the right to settle in Israel, then as a proportional democracy, they would swiftly become the ruling majority. Israel eliminated. Again, the Jewish people would become the persecuted minority, as they've been for the past two millenia.

If you support nationhood for one side, you should support it for the other. Two states, each deciding their own citizenship criteria, just like every other nation in the world.

"If the Palestinians were given the right to settle in Israel, then as a proportional democracy, they would swiftly become the ruling majority. Israel eliminated."

As it is, Israel has seized the "right" to occupy Palestine, to steal homes and land. Every Illegal Settlement is doing what you say non-Jews must not be allowed to do.

PigletJohn, sergeantmajor has said she doesn't support the settlements; I don't think any posters do. Nevertheless, we can still hope that a two-state solution might one day come to fruition, although it is hard to be optimistic about this happening any time soon when settlement building and expansion continues.

Thanks halfdrunk, damn straight. I think the settlements are nothing but trouble.

however zaca quite clearly the people most 'at risk' currently are the palestinians. so if we're to protect those most at risk as you put it then it is the palestinians who currently have the most need for our protection.

we also cannot protect one group by allowing them to obliterate another. also recent events in some european cities have been triggered by israel's actions. it is in the interest of jews around the world for israel to cease to act in the criminal and immoral way it has been acting.

the continued theft of homes and lands is not just criminal, immoral and inhumane. It is also the greatest source of continued resentment which leads to hatred and violence.

HoneyBadger "we also cannot protect one group by allowing them to obliterate another. also recent events in some european cities have been triggered by israel's actions. it is in the interest of jews around the world for israel to cease to act in the criminal and immoral way it has been acting."

I agree we cannot protect one group by allowing them to obliterate the other. But it cuts both ways. Hamas has publicly vowed to wipe out all Israelis and Jews worldwide and its actions show every sign of trying to carry this out. You don't describe that as criminal and immoral however. Why not?

This is the second post where you have blamed the Jews for the persecution they receive. It's not on.

well said Sergeant it needs to cut both ways.

The israelis have already wiped out most of palestine... And grabbing more land as we speak. They were doing it before hamas was around and will carry in after hamas dissappears...(if it does). Hamas simply doesnt factor into land stealing land and massacres..The ideology behind israel however...does.

but don't want to get in too deep discussions about it either. Also, it wasn't 50yrs ago- in counties like Yemen and Ethiopia, it's still ongoing, and thinking of Russia, Lebanon etc

.... Dont forget palestine. Its very much ongoing there..

maami - what on earth do you mean "wiped out most of palestine"....?

You can't mean the population. The Palestinian population has grown 600% since Israel was founded.

Do you mean the control of the West Bank? I personally would very much like to see the Israelis withdraw and have a peaceful independent Palestine on this land. Although when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, that didn't work out too well for them. Did it?

And I think we all remember how the West Bank came to be occupied. It was when the Palestinians and Arab neighbours aimed to eradicate the state of Israel in 1967 (which was previously within smaller borders). So, if I may borrow your phrasing, Palestinians were trying to eradicate Israel "before hamas was around and will carry on after hamas disappears".

I think your use of 'wipe out' is not suitable here. You see, Hamas refers to killing all Israelis and all Jews worldwide. That's a wipe out. It's also an awkward start point for negotiations, don't you think?

Yes, everything should cut both ways. I think the difference here is in how wide a picture you're looking at. Because i dont think anyone here thinks it's ok for hamas to aim at wiping out israel. Of course it's wrong to say you're going to wipe someone out (oh the irony, given what's going on with Isis!!!), but firstly, there are quite big difference between saying something, trying to do it, and actually doing it. Publicly, i dont think Israel talks about wiping out Palestinians (despite plenty of private views being expressed - by those in positions of power), but their actions speak much louder than any words. And that reality is what gets people so annoyed. (I also believe that if the boot were on the other foot in this sad story, everyone would be rushing to support the jews and or the israelis.) Secondly, there's a big difference between saying that "AN israel as a notional entity" should cease to exist and "THE apartheid, racist, over-armed and trigger-happy lawbreaking Israel" should cease to exist. (You can then get into longer discussions about a Jewish state/religious democracy...). I'm prepared to state that I don't think THIS Israel should exist (in the same way I'm glad the former apartheid SA state has (largely?) ceased to exist) though I'm most definitely not against the notion of a peaceful, just, fair, legal state of israel!

I think the wider picture is also important in terms of antisemitism. Sargeant complains of victim blaming, but I don't think that's what was going on here. In the same way that we need to look to the historical context to understand Hamas's stance (and why do you think they want to annihilate Israel, sergeant?), i think it is appropriate to note that Israel's actions are leading to an increase in antisemitism. It's obv wrong for antisemitic morons to attack individuals for what is going on elsewhere, but the rise in reported instances of racism against Jews is indisputably linked to israel's offensives/campaigns/operations (pick your own emotionally loaded term).

It's hypocritical to expect individuals to behave better than the bodies who represent us. What do they/you/we expect if our governments allow a state to flout international law time and time again? Again, the slogan 'we are all Palestinian' comes to mind. It cuts both ways all round!

i haven't blamed jewish people for anything. i've pointed out the obvious fact that the behaviour of israel has an effect on jews around the world.

much as the behaviour of western governments in attacking iraq has an effect on western people who had no part in it around the world too.

that's not blaming jews for their treatment but pointing out that whilst israel acts brutally and without any regard for human life on the world stage it clearly creates a bad perception. i did not bomb iraq but however the bombing of iraq has created a perception and resentment of the west that effects me.

you can twist all you like but this constant 'you're antisemitic' is misplaced and really transparent.

As for 1967, sergeant, there's another view aside from the narrative you seem to adhere to. I posted this before, it's the take of an Israeli general's son on the historical background and current actions. So quite an informed perspective! scgnews.com/idf_Hama's_human_shield_a_sloppy_forgery. You need to scroll right down the page to the embedded video link. I couldn't find a working YouTube link, funnily enough! Seems the many video links have all mysteriously broken (perhaps after Peled was arrested in July?)

sergeantmajor
"This is the second post where you have blamed the Jews for the persecution they receive. It's not on."

I didn't hear you blaming Palestinians for the persecution they receive - or did I?

QnBoudi - I had a look at that link, but the page doesn't appear to be working.

You can criticise the actions of the Israeli government, that is your prerogative. But accusations of racism and apartheid are wholly off the mark.

(Quoting here from Denis MacEoin, an academic in Arabic and Islamic studies...)

"Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or
anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha'is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world center; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population).

Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews - something no blacks were able to do in South Africa .

Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.

In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home.

Israel is one of the world's freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Bahai's."

maami - what on earth do you mean "wiped out most of palestine"....?

This is what i mean..

occupiedpalestine.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/israel-palestine_map_19225_2469.jpg

Can I add, I didn't say anything about the Palestinians not needing protection. I was simply responding to the comment that the right to return was racist. Nothing to do with the need to protect Palestinians. The cycle of anti semitism is, however, very, very different to what is happening to the Palestinians. But what is happening in Palestine is of course horrible. I'm from Guatemala and I know what war and conflict is like, what seeing people killed in front of you is like. Children are being scarred for life as we speak.

I don't consider it anti Semitic to say the events in Israel has triggered many of the current anti Semitic actions, because I believe it has, allowing anti Semites to either feel justified in their reasoning or creating enough anger.

Sorry for dodgy link, try this scgnews.com/IDF_Hamas_human_shield_manual_a_sloppy_forgery instead.
It's easy to say people have rights in law and quite another to abide by them. There's plenty of evidence that rights are not afforded to Palestinians. Miko Pelee cites some examples in his talk.

Link still duff. Last effort for time being - scgnews.com/idf_hamas_human_shield_manual_a_sloppy_forgery

Damn. Looks like that link to his talk has mysteriously broken, too!! His point was that the narrative of Arab 'attacks' in 1967 and 1947/8 are just parts of a great big myth. Eg how could a single state fight against a whole host of strong, determined nation on several fronts, killing over 15,000 enemy soldiers, losing just 700 men, all in 6 days? No, the Arab armies were not strong, nor out to annihilate Israel, but the generals (of whom his father was one) had decided to wipe them out before they had any chance to develop into an actual threat. This is based on personal evidence and written records.

try here

Zacapa "I was simply responding to the comment that the right to return was racist"

If there was a state whose policy was to ethnically cleanse its territory, and that of its neighbour of Jews, stealing people's homes and land simply because they were Jewish, and giving that land and those homes to incoming non-Jews, that would be wicked, illegal, immoral and inhumane. If that state said that the non-Jews had the right to take over those Jewish homes and land, simply because they were non-Jews, then you could reasonably describe that state, and its people, and its policy, as racist, or perhaps as fascist.

If there was a state and a people that did exactly the same to people simply because they were non-Jews, and to declare that the Jews had the right to take over the homes and land, then you could reasonably describe that state, and its people, and its policy, as racist, or perhaps as fascist. The state which is doing that is Israel.

Is there a way in which you can say it is not a racist, or fascist, policy?