Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza settlements - what do you think?

[donnie]

my feeling is that it is a bit of an empty gesture, since they continue their expansionist policies of extending settlements in the West Bank, and also continue to construct the wall which annexes yet more Palestinian land.But perhaps I am being cynical - what do other people think?

well, this thread has certainly hotted up - good! I agree with peachskin, it is a conflict fundamentally about land and it suits the Israelis to tag all opponents of their governmant as anti semites. It is pointless to drag up what may or may not have been the case thousands of years ago - the borders of most nations have changed beyond recognition since then anyway. I also agree that Arafat did pass up a good opportunity when Clinton brokered the camp david treaty in the 90s. But the fact is that thw Israelis are living on occupied land and have forced the Palestinians to live in the most squalid refugee camps and persecute them all the time.All under the pretence of ' fighting terrorism' - what lies. The current Israeli PM was a General in the army who invaded Beirut among other things, and among other ex Pms is Menachin Begin who was a member of the Stern Gang, a radical group which bombed hotels and murdered people. So that tells us something of who and what the Israelis see as acceptable. I feel slightly sorry for the 'settlers' being removed, but since the land is stolen anyway why should I really care?

btw alliejane, by the same token I could turn around and say that ' a repulsive and arrogant belief in their own superiority is entrenched into the Jewish faith' - the chosen race and all that - but I won't. But there are a great many people who would.

But the Gaza settlers are people who went there as a deliberate act, often arriving from other countries, and are not necessarily supported by the majority of Isrealis, anyway. So I don't feel at all sorry for them.

you are right Blu - radicalism in any form is hideous and, strangely , those radical Jews you mention are exactly the same as radical Taleban or whatever - they are all up their own arses, deluded by self belief and a twisted literal belief in religious scriptres. Oops, now I really have set the cat among the pigeons.....

When I watched the news yesterday I fet a bit sorry for them having to leave their homes however......

leaving their homes is not the worst thing in the world and people have to do it all the time for various reasons.

most importantly to me when the police and army are moving the palestinians to build there wall I know their aren't eviction orders or helps with news homes or hotels until other homes are found or their property moved for them and kept in safekeeping until they found a home. MOre like they are evicted in the middle of the night with no warning and have to leave all their possessions behind to keep their own lives.

I don't know enough about the whole situation to make any real judgements but my feelings are these women should have left far earlier rather than shoving their children into police/army personel's face and upsetting the children so much. I understand they feel strongly but the children shouldn't have been involved so directly.

agreed Marypop - plus the are getting shedloads of compensation for their trouble. Which is more that the 800,000 palestinians ever got when they were forcibly removed from their homes.My symoathy is dwindling!

hear hear

too much propaganda and spin around these well compensated removals.

so the jewish people should not have a homeland?

so the Palestinians should not have homeland?

never said that about palestinians - and never would - but its not an easy answer is it?

it is so easy to be up there on that bandwagon though isn't it

I don't know about having a homeland at the expense of someone elses misery......

I read an article not so long ago about a English teenager (19 I think) who was in Palestine and was shot by Isreal troops because the family were English and had the money to take the army to court the solder who shot was courtmarshelled. A palestinian teenager being shot is an everyday occurance in Palestine, and according to the solder, the commanding officer felt one less of them to blow us up kind of attitute. The only difference between the people involved in this incident and many many others that occur in Palestine everyday is that the boy was English and the family had money to legally do stand up to the solders.

The familys removed from their homes the other day was carefully carried by same sex troops, gentled helped out, the solders supported and cried with the girls/women. Its was all very nice and cosy. The Isreals and Pastistians have committed some terrible acts in the name of their religious homeland and surely a piece of land is not an acceptable reason for regularly killing women and children.

"So the jewish people should not have a homeland?"

Sorry for my ignorance Mud, but I don't understand this. In what sense would you describe a 'homeland' and in this case why would it be solely for 'Jews' and not Israeli's'?

Mt - good point as usual !

Israel as a new state is what they call an "ersatz" in political science, like say, Singapore. It is an artificial construct with artificial borders set by the colonial powers.

Yes, no one wants to deny the Jews a "homeland" in the region of their forefathers, but the Palestinians have an EQUAL right to the same piece of land, also owned by their forefathers.

The Gaza strip was occupied by Israel in 1967 when they defeated the various Arab countries involved in that war. International Law says that it is illegal to settle your people into an area which has been forcefully occupied during. This goes for the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights and the West Bank. Israel is only now complying with International Law in giving back what was taken by force.

Although I sympathise with the Jews who have had to give up their homes last week, the Israeli Govt. should have complied with International Law and never allowed homes to be built in the Gaza strip in the first place.

I also sympathise with the millions of Palestinians who have been living as refugees since 1948. They too were forced off their lands.

Should they also give back the West Bank, ps? (And Jerusalem?)

fascinating maps

Look at the size of the country in 1949-1967 . Israel was only 40 miles (I think - v small amount anyway) wide at its narrowest point then, before the West Bank was taken from Jordan in the 6 day war; given that Israel's neighbouring arab states were supposedly sworn to drive all the Jews into the sea, you can't blame them for wanting a buffer zone. (I never understood why the West Bank wasn't part of Israel in the first place.)

Palestine under British Mandate - this one shows the borders the Jews hoped for - included parts of Lebanon and Syria as well as the Gaza strip and part of Jordan.Jordan. Presumably that was just an opening gambit but what they ended up with was ludicrous.

one last one

Just look at the scale of the attacking armies - Egyptian, Saudi, Jordanian, Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese. How in hell did Israel win?

(NY Jewish joke in reply - they put doctors, dentists and lawyers in the front line and shouted "charge"!)

It's like scratching an itch looking up this stuff.

Janh - it's ok having "buffer zones", but not when it's at the expense of millions of other people who are forced to become refugees and not when it is done in blatant breach of International Law.

The Jews cannot, either by way of history or religion, claim a GREATER right (to what used to be called Palestine) than the Palestinians, whether they be Muslim or Christian.

Many other nationalities, ethnic groups and religions have lived in Palestine throughout its long history and the Arabs (both Muslim and Christian) as far as International Law goes have an equal right to it.

I think if Britain were taken from you by force, so you ended up living, say in France, as a refugee, you too might want to drive the people who took your home by force into the sea ? I am not trying to rationalise the attacks of Arabs on Israel, just trying offer a view from the other side of the coin. The aggression of Israel against the Arab states is not lesser than anything the Arabs have done to the Jews.

As for Jerusalem - both Muslims and Christians consider Jerusalem as one of their holiest cities. All 3 faiths have an EQUAL right to it. Jerusalem is not and should not be exclusively Jewish.

There is nothing in International Law which says which faith Jerusalem should belong to and as far as I am concerned International Law is the only set of rules which will allow sanity to prevail in that part of the world.

Another point often missed in this debate: the greatest atrocities throughout history against the Jewish people have been committed by Christian against Jew, NOT by Muslim against Jew -most recent example - the brutal murder of 6 million Jews right here in the middle of "civilised" Europe 60 years ago at the hands of a European Christian called Hitler. Jews were not welcome in most of the European countries they lived in throughout history.

Disraeli (a Jew) had to convert to Anglicanism in order to become prime minister because he knew he would never be voted in as a Jew - we are talking C19th Britain in this case not the Dark Ages even !!

It suits the political agendas of both Europe and the USA to portray the "barbaric" Arab Muslim as the sworn enememy of the Jew, but this is utter rubbish and the historical evidence is there for those who are opened minded enough and liberal enough to admit this !!

It is Britain and the USA who created Israel to help compensate for the atrocities committed aganist the Jews in Europe (and they did this at the expense of the Palestinan and Arab people) and it is they who have to now help sort out the mess.

I think it is incredibly difficult and way beyond me. I feel hugely for the Palestinians and do believe they deserve the Gaza land returned, but almost equally I feel incredible sadness for those who have to leave their homes, history and in some cases the reamins of loved ones (I understand these will be moved, but that in itself is horrible). Just a terribly sad situation for everyone involved.

"It suits the political agendas of both Europe and the USA to portray the "barbaric" Arab Muslim as the sworn enememy of the Jew, but this is utter rubbish and the historical evidence is there for those who are opened minded enough and liberal enough to admit this !!"

• from the masada website which I guess you haven't got to yet, ps - I did post a lot just now!

Is this a total fabrication then?

There were Jews moving back into Palestine in the 1880s and living peacefully alongside the Arabs who were there; and a Jewish homeland was being discussed long before WWII.

I have no idea who masada2000 - but a quick look tells me it is propoganda churned out by someone who is not a historian or political scientist of merit.

Janh - if you are going to post stuff here to prove your point, please give references to a politically balanced website that contains proper historical references rather than something which looks like it has been written by a school boy who is training to become a Mossad Agent !!

Jerusalem is not exclusively Jewish now, ps; but before 1967 much of it was inaccessible to Jews. Jerusalem is more open now it is completely within Israel than it was before.

Janh - I am sorry but on one of your other threads you told us you were an avid supporter of Boris Johnson and his comments on Multicultural Britain, scotch eggs and all.

I would not therfore put you in the category of "open-mided liberal people" that I have referred to below.

I don't know your professional background is, but I think you and I have a very different idea of what is fair, unbiased, political commentary.

I didn't think that was what I said but never mind - I'll be a narrow-minded bigot if you like.