Part 7: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

[AndHarry]

Thread 1 - started when 3 Israeli boys were found murdered

Thread 2 - Operation Protective Edge

Thread 3 - Operation Protective Edge, the wider conflict and international involvement

Thread 4 - Operation Protective Edge and the different views in Israel and the wider international community

Thread 5 - in which Operation Protective Edge came to an end and the discussion continued

Thread 6 - themes of the conflict, what happens next and how ordinary people can get involved

Welcome to Thread 7.

Yruapita

no answer as to why 'Pakistan Shiite' is racist yet?

No explanation?

Personally, I think it's because your brain washed narrative is that anyone who doesn't join in your hatred of Israel must therefore be racist. Thus you were desperate to find a way to call me racist. You couldn't so you decided that Pakistani Shiite must be a (grotesque) racist slur - which really shows that your mind is in the gutter.

And of course no answer as to why the Muslim world is so obsessed with Israel despite having such an awful human rights track record themselves.

Funnily enough, I agree with most of what was written in the al-monitor link yruapita just posted.

I don't like the direction Israel is moving in, there is increasing xenophobia, nationalism and racism. I don't like it one bit.
Here's the relevant quote from that article
"For years, Israel was an object of admiration by the West for its dramatic rebirth, its military and technological ingenuity, its democracy despite war and its humanity after the Holocaust. All this is gradually being replaced by a perception of Israel as a colonial power with racist tendencies, theocratic practices and a good deal of paranoia and xenophobia. Israel is also no longer the underdog of the conflict; it is simply too strong."

So I guess you agree with that yruapita? You said something nice about Israel! Shock, horror!! That Israel was admired for being a democracy and humane!! I suspect though it's because you didn't actually read the article...:)

Also, it doesn't say that Israel is an apartheid state or perceived as one. It says it's on its way to becoming one. I agree with that as well - the settlements are increasingly going to lead to an apartheid situation and nix any chance of a two state solution in the future. Israel itself isn't an apartheid state but what's happening in the WB (and Gaza - but in a different way) will become apartheid if the current situation is formalised.

"most"

So can you give me some examples please of Jewish land being seized by non-Jews? In a way that is equivalent to, for example this?

Or, as I asked, are Jewish seizures of non-Jewish land considered to be legal, socially acceptable, and not uncommon? But not the reverse?

In Apartheid South Africa, the whites grabbed land, and sent the blacks away by force and by law.

So who was actually sent away in the example you linked to?

I don't agree with it but no one was sent away or expelled like you say.

And it doesn't say it was Jews. It was Israel. In fact Jewish is not mentioned once. Not all Israelis are Jews you know.

look at the language you are uncritically using eg. this is a national conflict yet it's between Israel and 'the' palestinians. Israel - a nation state and 'the' palestinians an occupied people without a military, state apparatus, trading, stable economy etc.

that's not two nations even in the language you are using - it is a militarised state against a people of a particular ethnic heritage.

and it isn't nationalism when people are moving in overnight with a whole lifetime in another nation and joining in the 'death to all arabs' chants. that's ethnic tribalism.

i for one am not saying that some elements of the palestinian people have done unacceptable things but i cannot pretend that there is equity between radical elements of a people who are oppressed and the actions of a State that deliberately, strategically using advanced military actions, economic power and control of land and borders and allows settlements to ever encroach. it just isn't comparable and to bring it down to 'there's wrong both sides' ignores the utter disparity of each sides capacity and the disparity of human costs of the wrong done by each side.

or we could fall back, again, upon the legal specifics - re: an occupied people has the legal right to resist. it is illegal for an occupying force to apply collective punishment etc.

and occupations whilst allowed for are not meant to be decades long.

Aren't ethnic tribalism and nationalism one and the same?

Some Jewish Israelis chant Death to Arabs and on the Palestinian side, there's a lovely chant 'itbah el-yahud' which means slaughter the Jews. It's an ugly conflict which certainly has racial overtones on both sides.

Yes, Israel is far more powerful (now) and, as a state (and an occupying one), has a different set of obligations and responsibilities which it is not fulfilling.

But please don't romanticize the Palestinians by talking about only radical elements doing unacceptable things since that is not the case. Just as there is a collective failing on the part of Israel (imo) to recognise the political and moral catastrophe of occupying another people and denying them their political and civil rights, there is also a collective failing on the part of the Palestinians to move beyond the conflict and their sense of victimization.

The Palestinians were offered an end to the conflict most recently in 2008 at Annapolis. The occupation could have ended, they could have their own state by now. Abbas turned it down. So Israelis elected Netanyahu who always said the Palestinias aren't really interested in compromise. The election of Hamas, who reject the two state solution or any recognitio of Israel, confirmed that viewpoint.

I've always seen Abbas as a pragmatist so I don't get why he turned it down. My husband, who knows much more about this than me, thinks he simply wouldn't have been able to push it through. The Palestinians suffered so much during the 2nd intifada (which they stupidly started) that they had to have something to show for it - mainly the right of return - and Annapolis was more or less along the sane lines as Camp David with some differences.

And this reminds me of an interview with Ami Ayalon, a leftwing Israeli politician. He met with a moderate Palestinian leader a couple of years into the second intifada. The Palestinian says to him something about the Palestinian victories. Ayalon looks at him in shock and asks how he can say that given the Palestinian suffering as a result. And this guy laughs and tells him he doesn't understand Palestinians, that they can endure any suffering as long as they can make Israelis suffer too. Kind of explains the Gaza situation a bit as well.

Yes, I can understand resistance to occupation. You're right that the occupation was always meant to be a temporary state of affairs. If you read Israeli historical documents, you'll see none of this was planned (some Israelis, even back in 1967, were prescient as to what would happen if the occupation wasn't ended, look at yeshayahu leibovitz, but most were euphoric at the victory and assumed it'd be given back to Jordan or Egypt in exchange for peace, the settlements came along later). In have no problem.agreeigg that Israel is acting illegally.

The first intifada was completely justified (if anything, sanctions should have been placed on Israel then!). But not the second intifada. There was a peace process then, a way out of the mess and a way to end the occupation. Arafat led the Palestinians in to disaster. Where is the Palestinian Ben Gurion? Ghandi? Lee Kuan Yew? A visionary leader for the state in waiting? Nope, they had Arafat, a megalomaniac, corrupt gangster. This is why I have a lot of criticism for the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

no ethnic tribalism and nationalism are not the same thing - a) one is about ethnicity rather than nationalism b) nationalism implies a nation - a nation state with the apparatus and rights of a nation state. ergo you couldn't in your statements say Israel and Palestine have fault on both sides you had to resort to saying Israel and 'the' palestinians.

I haven't seen many black people in the English defence league.

And you can change Israel for the Israelis. Same thing. Israeli isn't an ethnicity, neither is Palestinian. They're national identities.

Oh, I also reread what I wrote and saw I did also refer to 'the Israelis'

Surely it's going to kick off big time in Jerusalem & WB soon: www.imemc.org/article/69521.

I don't see the 2 'sides' as equally culpable. Of course the Palestinians are not all shining white. But it's ludicrous to suggest they are jointly responsible. The conditions that have lead to despair/frustration/resentment were not self-inflicted but brought about by decades of being ignored by the world while Israel has been pandered to with weaponry and funding at a stupid level and been allowed - if not actively encouraged - to do whatever tf it likes. The Palestinians have never been 'offered' anything reasonable in 'peace talks' and their 'lack of willingness' to roll over and 'accept' is hardly surprising, esp. given who's been in charge of 'negotiations'.

It's worth noting that - yet again - in the post-ceasefire mood of hope (imo totally vain) that all the big talk of reconstruction/peace plans (yeah, let's talk about sea/airports soon, when 'the time is right'...), there has been not a single rocket launched into Israel in the last 2 months. And what have they got in return? Aggro, aggro and more aggro. Oh yes, and a few truckloads of supplies, though nothing like what's actually needed. Instead, it's all arrests, shootings, skunk water 'crowd control tactics' (isn't that illegal, ffs??), harassment at prayers, damage to olive groves, the introduction of 'nearly-apartheid' bus systems, and ever escalating land grabs. (None of this would be intentional provocation, would it?) But still, we mustn't forget to apportion sufficient blame to the Palestinians for their part in contributing to their own miserable conditions. WTF??? Oh, and Arafat's got a lot to answer for, even though he's been dead for 10 years. www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/politics/14842-ngo-more-than-one-israeli-attack-on-gaza-per-day-in-september.

And incidentally, here's a different take on the 'rampant' anti-semitism that's leading French jews to up sticks in their masses and move to the relative safety of a war zone: www.middleeasteye.net/essays/french-media-created-parallel-hell-divert-attention-gaza-1220167742.

Goodness, the US not playing ball? www.telegraph.co.UK/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11188748/US-Israel-relations-in-crisis-after-Moshe-Yaalon-snubbed.html. Is it just personal or the start of a seismic move???

Arafat was responsible at a crucial point in time. He was an obstacle to.peace then.
Now it's Netanyahu who is the greatest obstacle (and was in the 90s when he was elected thanks to Hamas)

Realistically, the Palestinians aren't going to get more than was offered in the previous negotiations: 1967 borders with land swaps, special status for Jerusalem/temple mount (this bit has varied), compensation for refugees and symbolic return of some refugees. What more do you expect? That Israel apologise for winning the various wars and voluntarily dismantle itself?

And, actually, the Palestinian negotiators agreed these terms. Read their memoirs. It was the leadership which messed up.

Ben Gurion, when offered the 1947 UN partition plan, wasn't happy. But he accepted. Because having a state was the vision. Luckily for the Israelis, the Arabs turned it down and declared war. They repeat the sane mistake again and again. It's a shame that they aren't learning from history. Where is their Ben Gurion?

If you read my posts qnboudi rather than a knee jerk reaction, you'd see that I think that the current Israeli government is as short sighted and provocative as they come. I'll look up an article I once posted by Yuval Diskin, previous head of the internal security service, which is scathing of Netanyahu and his approach to the Palestinians. I agree that the Palestinians in the wb have done a lot, prior to this summer, to keep the peace over the last couple of years and were slapped in the face in return by Israel.

But I still think the Palestinians are also responsible for the conflict in the ways I detailed below. At different points in time, different actors have been more culpable, going back to when this whole thing started 150 years ago. Absolving the . Palestinians of responsibility is not a constructive way forward. In order to reach peace, Palestinians need to change as well. They're not hare Krishnas, only seeking to spread love and joy.

I hope there is US pressure because that could have real results (with all due respect to Europe). Carter hated Israel but managed to get Israel to make peace with Egypt. I'd hoped Obama, who's no Israel lover unlike dubya who did give Israel carte blanche, would take more of an active role. Maybe the good thing about bibi pushing the boat out is that he's shaken up the status quo.

yes - AFTER i pointed out that you'd used that asymmetrical reference up to that point you tried to make it symmetrical by changing to 'the israelis' the thing is though it doesn't work. i would feel terribly uncomfortable saying the israelis treatment of palestinians is barbaric for example because it isn't ALL israelis. much as you should feel uncomfortable making all encompassing statements 'the palestinians'. one can say 'israel' and be referring to state policy and actions rather than every israeli hence using that term (the alternative is the essence of racism/prejudice - believing or acting as if ALL people of one feature ((ethnicity, skin, colour, gender, religion)) are or can be seen as or spoken of as the same).

the symmetry and avoidance of racism won't be achieved by attributing the actions of the state of israel to 'the israelis' as a whole but by, when talking about the actions of a small group/s within the palestinian population, distinguishing what group/s you are talking about and being clear that that does not mean ALL palestinians.

it's an important point because it is something NOT being done within Israels policies towards for example gaza where it is punishing ALL palestinians for the acts of a few (collective punishment) nor is it being done in the public discourse where state employed politicians can publicly denounce ALL palestinians as snakes and call for their destruction.

the language also needs to not hide the fact that in this alleged 'fault on both sides' whitewash one 'side' is a fully militarised, economically strong nation state and the other 'side' is a collection of people being collectively punished for the actions of a few.

if this seems petty to you i'd really suggest you rethink because discourse is power - especially in this world of modern media and spin and in which a vicious cycle exists of those in power controlling discourse, and those who control discourse having power.

it is also why the internet and social media changes the landscape so dramatically.

I think most people realise that when you talk about a national collective, you don't mean every single individual.

If I said that the Americans love apple pie, no one would assume that I meant every single American loves apple pie.

Similarly, if I say that the Palestinians are at fault for having turned down the israelis' offer of statehood in 2008, obviously not every individual Palestinian did so. Neither did every Israeli offer it.

The Bbc uses the same language and terminology so if its good enough for them.. .

the bbc is not a standard i'd aspire to personally

a militarised nation state and a stateless displaced people do not have equivalence. you cannot talk of two sides with blame as if you were talking about two nation states for example or two groups with equal power within one nation.

the language you have used, and that used by the bbc and wider mainstream media is not neutral or without power - the language aims to pretend equivalence or put into people's mind an image of two nations, or two equal power groups fighting or having a war.

that does not refect the truth and imo, in the case of some media, is a deliberate obfuscation of the truth.

It's funny you say that about the BBC. In Israel, the general feeling is that they're biased against them.

Generally a news agency which is criticised by both sides for being biased is doing a pretty good job in my book.

The bbc4 radio prog (the media and the middle east) was a microcosm of the whole issue IMO. Whilst there were some fascinating sections, notably playing the same 2 clips to proponents from the 2 'sides', about which they both complained of a lack of contextualisation, what struck me more was the language used throughout. Whether you heard it or not, you can guess which side was being referred to when they mentioned 'the bogeyman', 'the terrorists', 'extreme danger (stone throwing)', 'fury', 'exploded (reaction), 'disorganised (not having a PR machine)', etc. Needless to say, the language was not nearly so marked by violence and negativity when talking about the other side, who were instead linked with 'education', 'scientific progress' and the like. Jeremy Bowen said there were very very few complaints about BBC anti palestinian bias but the story told related to threats and cutting off of fingers which the self righteous BBC dealt with by threatening legal action. Meanwhile the acknowledged thousands of complaints of anti israeli bias were dismissed with a 'funny' story of a daft old man attaching the instructions to his email. They dismissed the furore which ended in Rabin's assassination by pointing out it was one individuals actions which had jeopardised the 'peace' though the whole mood of the palestinian reaction to the peace talks 'soured'. Even the final analysis, in which they claimed the Palestinians had 'won the social media war' was immediately discredited with claims that this simply made the 2 camps more entrenched in their respective corners rather than leading to genuine exchange of views. As THB pointed out, language is massively instrumental in forming/distorting opinions and the beeb were exceptionally cunning in the way they put together that programme in 'defence' of their coverage of the issues. Protesting about a media channel's bias may well just be playing the same devious game. That's why so many people have been involved in linguistic analysis of the coverage - because that gets to the truth of the matter instead of continuing the myths.

The Bbc has no reason to be pro Israeli (unless you believe the Jews control the media).

As in this thread, you give no legitimacy to any Israeli needs and claims and absolve the Palestinians of any responsibility simply because they are the weaker side.

No surprise that you think objective news agencies which don't toe your line to be biased.

And I'm not sure why you seem so outraged that the Bbc reported that the tone from those complaining about anti Palestinian bias was more aggressive and threatening.

After all, pro Israel protesters didn't break into a supermarket and start throwing halal. food on the floor, did they?

I notice you also accused the French media of exaggerating the very real fear that French Jews have. Yes, many have moved to a war zone because they want to be able to walk down the street wearing a yarmulke without being attacked. Sure, a separate issue to Gaza but of course the French media is interested, as it should be. Europe doesn't have a great track record at protecting Jews.

You,re not sure? Well you didn't get the main point of my post then, seemingly. You mentioned supermarket protesters, but did you follow the link to the french jewish defence league video footage in the article? And incidentally, it was that article which accused French media of bias, not me! I said it 'gives a different take' to views which have been posted on this thread.