Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
this makes me so mad
why can't the international community stand up to the bloody Israeli military?
Because the international community mostly agrees that it is all Hamas' fault?
I'm not sure everyone else is as blinkered in their loyalty
or 'mostly' in terms of at least one permanent security council member with a veto ?
I mean 'mostly' as in the specific people who are actually in a position to do anything about this situation - the elected representatives - the qualified experts - these people agree that Israel is justified doing whatever it is they're doing and that we, with our big scarves, Israel Out signs and Bonoisms, can be safely ignored.
that elected representatives agree that Israel's action of collective punishment of civilians is justified?
both in this military action AND in the strict embargoes enforced by the Israelis on Gaza ?
it wouldn't surprise me if Hamas deliberately stored weapons or fired rockets from near a school on purpose. In which case they would be to blame, although not totally.
deliberately and on purpose unnecessarily, do you want to explain why it is so stupid? What is stupid about thinking that Hamas might do this and that, if they did, that they would share some of the blame for the deaths?
Since it was quite insulting. If you can't or won't that's fine.
I like to think I'm pretty clued up about current affairs, but this 'war', for as long as its being going on, has passed me by completely.
Could someone provide a quick summary of what it's all about?
I've got a better idea now, so when I watch the news, I can actually tutt or nod as I actually understand a little more about what's going on! Congratulations! That's your good deed for the day done!
except he forgot to mention that it goes back rather longer than that as an actual modern conflict
and much longer as an historical powder keg
anything he's written cuz of my sheer dumb ignorance surrounding the subject, which leaves me in no position to argue! I just wanted to get the overall gist of the conflict.
Just one: In what way has Hamas winning the elections destroyed the credibility of neoconservatism? For one thing, to call that an election is a laugh. In terms of the wider regional impact, what did it accomplish? Iran's belligerence, viewed in hindsight is just more of the same old shit. Iraq was entirely unaffected. Ordinary Palestinians just got the leccy cut off again.
And then there's the issue of why exactly Hamas were so well regarded in the first place. The issue of Israel aside, ordinary Palestinians expected them to take up the duties of government - providing food, security; in short - law.
If anything, Hamas were the ones descredited when they demonstrated that they're no better than some drug dealer gang, bribing the the citizenry with 'street law', handouts, and propaganda directed at a bogey enemy.
It doesn't need to be convincing. It's hardly a silly thing to say that the average Palestinian might have other things on his mind besides waging infinite war against Israel - which is what the fanatics would have us believe is the sole focus of every man, woman and child on that side of the wall, when that's just not true - no-one has the energy for that.
Also, if a bunch of op-ed blowhards are proven dead wrong on that issue, that's great. How that discredits neoconservatism as a doctrine in itself is not so clear, no?
Gaza and the West Bank are autonomous Palestinian territory
and that state of affairs will have painful, long term consequences which are not worth going into in this thread
That's what pretty much started the whole thing. And the security wall. And the student uprisings which what got Hamas where they are now over time. I found this was a pretty good place to start with reading on the subject:
as they didn't have a total victory.
Militarily they did better than credited,
Israel didn't go into the war with all of it's capaciry and they certainly underestimated Hezbollah.
They won't do that again, and if there was another war I'd predict Hezbollah would come out of it worse.
Their only 'victory' was that they weren't destroyed.
People either defend Hamas or defend Israeli. Both are pretty fucking indefensible at the moment.
Israel's actions are utterly utterly utterly unacceptable.
I'm pointing out the absurdity of the Israeli claims that this action is necessary
Depends how you take the meaning of the term 'necessary'. Tactically, using your biggest weapons on the enemy wherever they're located is very necessary. Strategically, they may have no other intention but to shit up the native population, in which case, what they're doing is again, necessary.
Where's the absurdity?
where people are sheltering from the fighting?
...and while bombing a single building may not accomplish much when viewed from a wider, strategic perspective - the striking of a single building might very well have been vital from an operational viewpoint. Or it might well have been a badly aimed bomb.
What is certain is that weasel words and cynically emotive sloganeering helps no-one to see clearly in any issue.
What do YOU think Israel should be doing? Bear in mind, they've tried negotiating and been slammed for it. They've tried limited surgical strikes and been slammed for it. They've tried asymmetrical warfare, sieges and blockades - slammed. And they've tried all out mobilisation, again slammed.
So what's the solution?
waitamintue,this is exactly what Vizier Jafar wants us to think...
Now I'm the king of the swingers
Oh, the jungle VIP
I've reached the top and had to stop
And that's what botherin' me
I wanna be a man, mancub
And stroll right into town
And be just like the other men
I'm tired of monkeyin' around!
and get around the table with all parties - respecting UN resolutions and withdrawals from illegal settlement areas and operate in Gaza under the protection of international law when it is necessary thus undermining Hamas' appeal as vengeful warriors
Highly idealistic I know, but not unpossible
To be honest, Hamas is a rod the Israelis built for their own back in many ways - not least in support them in the early days in order to divide and conquer the percieved threat of Fatah and the PLO
let's abandon international law and diplomacy and just bomb the fuck out of the opposition
God will choose the winners
that's the solution of the scripture wavers on both sides
and to draw attention to a real life situation that is happening right now
I didn't start it to win a thread on a message board
I think it's one of the strongest things I've ever said on this site
But Hamas have said they would negotiate towards a 2 state solution. They had moved more to the political/negotiation side of things before this latest disaster.
When will people in Israel realise that this action inflames the situation, and doesn't help at all? (I don't want an answer - twas rhetorical).
cos i was under the impression that hamas wanted the destruction of isreal,and were in fact voted in cos they were THE anti-isreali party
"They had moved more to the political/negotiation side of things before this latest disaster."
causing more casualties on one side or the other or both........unless we started to be creative, there will be a best solution, but it might not be a conventional established method of behaviour
Creative? Solution? Unconventional established behaviour?
This is the kind of talk that sometimes leads to democide...
Im all for that.
Srsly, its fairly obvious who has had enough room to change and de-escalate the problems.
If the Palestinians were able to develop their fledgling moves to independance without hinderence of resource or disadvantage due to land share then there would not be as much will to fire rockets into Israel.
Land division that imposes severe restriction on a country/group often results in some conflict.....(there is an element of this in Iraq going into Kuwait (the minute seaboard that they have proved very debilitating to them during the Iran Iraq war) although of course the shared oilfields would have been a major factor too.
to your leadership campaign, sometimes subtle unattributable actions and less dramatic long term policies can result in longer lasting effects.....of course this sort of thing does not have a n immediate effect to stop rockets once they've started, but they could have been put in to action beforehand to prevent the drivers that cause rockets to be fired into israel.
by pro-Israeli (admittedly hawkish) American columnists in the last few days.
More than one has said something along the lines of hoping that the killing of that family of 7 the other days would send a message to Hamas that they shouldn't attack Israel.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly separates this attitude from that of, say, Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization? The killing of innocents as warning message to achieve political ends - sounds identical to me.
Glenn Greenwald made an excellent point about this on his blog at Salon.
for which 600 palestinians have been killed.
4 Israelis have been killed by Isaraeli troops apparently...perhaps Israel should kill 600 of the troops nationality in retaliation.
SRSLY Hamas are firing rockets, that is bad and I would expect the israelis to do something about it.......however the best response would be to attack the rocket firers....not different targets and civillians who are unrelated to this (unrealated in any respect other than nationalities)
Palestinian elements are difficult to control and restrain by their own admin, i would have thought that the israeli military is disciplined and accountable in comparrison, therefore the actions of the combatants can be more directly linked to policy and political will and therefore be controlled by it.
Israel has acted disproportionally and therefore this is not all hamass fault, some of it is though. Why do people try to take such bipolar sides....both sides militant factions are pushing it....however the western states on the whole can have a dialogue with the israeli command that can influence the militant factions more effectively than they could with the palestinians, therefore the west should mostly be pressurising israel, and other responsible islamic states should be pressurising Hamas/palestine in Gaza
but I doubt it would be possible to attack the rocket firers in the Gaza strip without killing a fair number of civilians - it's very densely populated and Hamas apparently fire from civilian areas quite a lot, as well as involving children in the rocket firing itself.
it probably is just easier to assume there is collective responsibility for atrocities, however this easier route is one that the west has, on the whole, decided is not a moral one.
I can imagine that it would be very easy to interest children in the firing of exciting things like rockets
if you fire rockets from a densely populated civilian area into a densely populated civilian area and store large caches of munitions under houses in residential areas, you have to shoulder a large portion of the blame when civilians die. BUT that doesn't absolve Isreal of blame, not by a long shot.
go buy palestine by joe sacco. and read it, obviously. pretty out of date now, but essential nevertheless.
but every civilian that Israel kills acts as a lightning rod for Hamas support.
Anyone would think that both sides wanted to be in a state of perpetual war, justifying their existence...
(it shouldnt be like this, but unfortunatly it is cos those looking out for their charges are not so alert to those who are more concerned about the position)
Everything else is bloody minded fanatical semantics, with atrocities committed on both sides.
There's no arguing either way here - Gazans sending rockets into Israel deserves a response, but Israels blockades of medical supplies and essential services were so severe as to provoke rockets attacks. It's an endless viscous cycle.
As much as Jewsish people deserved a place where they could live free from persecution in the aftermath of the Second World War, I think installing them in Palestine at the expense of the Arabs who had been living there for hundreds of years, was quite frankly abhorrent. Scriptural precedent (Zionists' beliefs that Israel is a land promised to them by God) isn't a legitimate political one.
The idea of a two-state solution in the area of Israel/Palestine, as suggested throughout history, is probably anachronistic now.
But what other eventual outcomes are there? Several micro-states of different Jewish/Arab factions all interfighting? No side can ever "win" in the current scenario.
It is the biggest mess in the world. My economics teacher once said, quite seriously, that we should "nuke Jerusalem". But I think even then they'd fight over the crater.
since I can remember
Especially since the Mount of Olives (I believe) overlooking the city is the supposed starting point of the apocolypse.
dunno what to think
there needs to be talking though, i read somewhere above that hamas didn't want to negotiate at the end of the truce but i think that's a bit one sided. israel killed 30 palestinians during the "truce"...not to mention keeping gaza and the west bank under perpetual siege. firing rockets blindly into israel is just a sign of how fucking ground down these people are. it just seems to my mind to be a case of blow back.
and maybe i'm too cynical but honestly, the world leaders will never ever everrrrrrrrrrrrr go against america/israel. too many reasons to mention why.
A. Israel has enforced a embargo on Gaza for the past eighteen months, limited supplies of food, oil, medicine in, very little produce/products out - Israel has been slowly starving/ killing the population of the territory. (Much like we did in Iraq for ten years). This is collective punishment the past ten days they have just stepped this up, this tactic only ever makes the internal power (whoever that is) stronger - Read books.
B. Proportion - Can you imagine if in the 70's and 80's our reponse to IRA attacks in the UK was to shell the shit out of Catholic neighbourhoods in the North and border towns in the South. We would never be close to the peace the North enjoys today (Obviously not a direct comparrison but you get my drift)
C. The whole Israeli psyche is still based on creating a safe haven for Jews, much like the father who beats his wife and son, the son grows up to do the same.
D. America was built on a genocide (3.5 million native americans, conservative estimate) I guess thats why they can relate to Israel.
The Israeli people have continually been encroaching on Palestinian land, building houses, farming what is not theres, destroying palenstinian water supplies to force them out. Just before Christmas I watched a video where 'settlers' shot a point blank range a elderly palestinian, walking with a stick, and his son, who came to remonstrate that they were on his land - These Israeli actions never ever gets mentioned in the press
I don't get your drift at all. I wish people would stop seeing historical precedent where there is none.
English move into another territory Ireland - where there is religious differences, then British withdraw to a small part of the state, where there still not wanted, ship in loads of protestants into the North (including my Grandfather) just to stoke up the problem, entrench there position
but any deeper discussion and there really isn't. Hamas and the IRA have nothing in common
would not have been 'shipped' over.
He would have chosen to go.
Hey poor people - Have a free house and some free land or stay poor - Shall we say it was a 'distressed purchase'
but you are simplifying things to a ridiculous extent.
I think you'll find a good deal of deaths were related to them taking up natural resources, bringing over new diseases more than actively killing natives.
Hundreds of accounts of Early americans literally hounding the natives to violent deaths. And what exactly does ' good deal of deaths were related to them taking up natural resources' mean
It doesent help that one of Hamas's directives is to destroy the state of israel, the crisis wont ever end as whatever israel give or offer the palestinians will want that little bit more hence negotiotions failing in the past.
regarding persistent encroachment into palestinian territory by Israelis ,taking there land - There slowly wiping Palestine from the map - But just not declaring it as there slight more savy
is one which always leaves me completely stumped politically and turns me into an upset flower-yielding hippy who just wishes everyone could get along and not want to blow eachother up.
both sides are wrong and stuck in a cycle of never ending violence. I have literally no idea how the situation will ever be resolved. Although I am always a tad bemused how people expect Israel to be polite to groups whose only stated ambition is the destruction of Israel
if YOU, YOUR family and YOUR friends were kept living in what is basically an open prison, almost entirely dependant on foreign aid, where your electricity and water is regularly switched off, food and medical supplies are blocked and there is no self determination hope or freedom of movement and with the constant threat of military violence from the largest and only nuclear superpower in the region. i think you might find that there is probably some extreme thinkers there. i would like to think i had the balls to resist.... and all this talk that israel is constantly looking for a peaceful solution is a lot of COCK.
is seeking a peaceful solution.
hoping that the either will capitulate entirely and demand no compromise whatsoever without any conflict, then I suppose you're right. Otherwise, way true.
so why is it a 'open prison' in the first place?
Hamas think that only genocide will end the conflict. Israel has demonstrated- through cease fires, Oslo accords, and various other negotiated settlements that that they are willing to coexist with the Palestinians- that those people can have a state. But their neighbours do not accept this. They teach in their schools that the Israelis are usurpers. The Hamas position is that their work will be done once every Jew has been pushed into the Ocean.
The reaction to these positions (from you and others) seems to be that Israel hasn't given enough- that there is some manner of concession that Israel can make after which the Palestinians will suddenly be happy to share borders with them. As someone earlier noted, providing power and water is not enough. Nor was vacating settlements in the Strip. Nor was the evacuation of Lebanon enough to satisfy the demands of Hezbollah. Nor were the Oslo Accords. Nor were the Camp David meetings. In fact, nearly every concession made by Israel has been used as a springboard for more violence against them. When they allow ambulances into and out of their borders, those ambulances start carrying bombs. When they allow 3rd party aid into the area, aid ships carry weapons and munitions.
So I ask you what concession the Israelis ought to give. It surely cannot be this:
So the Palestinians can have a state. They don't need Israel. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are completely under their control. The day that they take to state-building, rather than thuggery and rocket launching, their state will be alive. Israel cannot make it happen.
They have foreign investment. Billions of dollars are handed over to the PA every year from Western Nations, the UN, and various Muslim countries. The problem is that corrupt leaders squirrel it away for their personal use, or to buy more weapons for launching at their neighbors.
What concession would give Palestinians dignity? I cannot give you dignity. Building a country from what you've got- that's dignified. Holding your leaders accountable for corruption and misery within their dominion- that's dignified. Nor can Israel give the Palestinians an economy or the material goods that come with it.
All these things- a state, an economy, schools, medical supplies. These things can only be built by the Palestinians. The entire world is offering them help. European teachers would flock to their shores to teach them maths. Engineers would take their billions of dollars and build roads, water purification, schools and hospitals. All they need to do is stop shooting rockets at Israel. That's it! As soon as they stop shooting rockets, Israel will stop coming over and blowing their stuff up.
Now you might say that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not big enough for a fully functioning state. Maybe this is correct. But since nobody has tried, I am unwilling to ask Israel to give up more land that, to this point, has merely been used against them as a new attack ground. When Israel was founded, they managed to turn desert into oasis. Contrary to popular opinion, they did this without the help of the United States. They defended themselves from attacking Arab nations in numerous wars, and the native Arabs in their own borders that helped those nations. They built their nation from nearly nothing while their neighbours sharpened knives, and the world largely looked on with indifference.
If the Israelis could do this, the Palestinians can too. And they will have the benefit of doing so without an attack from a coalition of neighbouring belligerents every 7 years. The world will cheer them on, and throw fistfulls of cash at them- glad that this sore spot is finally healing. But it is up to them.
was once know as Palestine
To go back to a stupid example - Imagine if Irish solution in 1918 was to push all the Catholics into a six county territory and then syaing yeah just live there - the other 32 counties are ours
That the upper echelons of Fatah and Hamas are both fuckers with only there own personal interests at heart
essentially you are right though, the Palestinians got screwed in 1948.
But that doesn't change the present day situation.
that the world was "indifferent" to Israel coming into existance is rather misleading. There was alot of pro zionist/zionist sympathy, whatever you wanna call it, post the holocaust. That's why they were allowed to illegally setup their state. And they turned the desert into an oasis with something known as shitloads of money.
no-one came to their aid though.
there is a well documented disjuncture between the end of the Holocaust and recognition that the Holocaust had actually happened in the Western world, which didn't really happen until the mid 1960s. So the assumption that the Holocaust had created Zionist sympathies among non-Jewish Europeans is pretty off, at least when you are considering the time frame in which a Jewish state was being set up.
to the best of my knowledge,it was UN sanctioned,and the british mandate drew the map,didnt it?
true,their expansion isnt as cut and clear,but considering that only happened after being attacked by a large portion of their neighbours
was that illegal too?
two wrongs dont make a right,but harping on about the past wont help the present
and you last point,you can have loadsa money,and your desert will still be a desert
its how you spend it,like say,not on rockets
you would have thought they would spend it on something more potent than the katyusha type rockets
they have to smuggle them in don't they?
I think Billions might be a bit excessive?
along with anything they might consider a 'luxury' - coke, good mattresses, some foods
what's your point?
also i don't know who may or may not know about Gaza's richest industry
by the leaders squirrelling it away for themselves and spending on arms....I actually suspect that the arms cost for the gazans is quite small compared with virtually everywhere else
but there is RAMPANT corruption there.
I merely disputed the idea that dood was trying to implant that the non developement of Gaza might be due to frittering away billions of aid on weapons, because the Gazans will have a very low arms bill compared with other 'states'
in the sense that they don't have a high-tech military.
But their arms bill is probably significant.
that was silly of me
but you see what im saying right?
this is amazingly tangential
that wasn't ours to give. And if we look at the present and ignore what the past what do we see? 600 on 1 side dead and 4 or 6 or so dead on the other. And a massive army fighting people with bottle rockets to defend themselves with...
isnt 'disproportionate' force over who youre fighting the goal in warfare?
now i dont like how im having to defend isreal here,but here i go;hamas has fired,what,6,000 rockets so far?
yet only killed 4 people
that shows their intentions,right?
so if you were isreal,why would you wait till they got better aim before taking them out?
there isnt rly any solution,if were honest,but this is probably the only move isreal could take that isnt seen as 'weak',in a region where weakness is only brutally punished
i was always dire at geography
They went to Israel because America and countries in Western Europe weren't willing to accept them
There was already a significant jewish population.
and America did and does have a significant amount of jews...
wasnt palestine founded by the rooms after some jewish rebellion anyway?
how far back would you go for justification?
you can see the trouble here
that's what it all boils down to. The Palestinians want Israel to ultimately hand back the land they took in 1967 during the 6 day war. And as they havn't in 40 years it's pretty clear they never will. So it's an unrealistic goal and the end result is somebody's got to budge on the issue for it to be resolved. Israel to either hand the land back, or for Palestine to accept that they won't get it back and just accept what they've been left with. Either way. I can't see it turning out too well in future unfortunately. Neither side will ever budge, they'll just keep blowing each other up.
that Israel keep building on the Palestinian land they've annexed
after isreal was attacked by most of its neighbours,it kept some of the land it fought for for itself
understandable really,for two reasons;1.it needs more land for its people,and 2.as a deterent to every other country thats threatening them,"you attach us,well trounce you and take a portion of your land"
seems to be working too,they havent been attacked by a proper army/state in a while now
what a clusterfuck
do you think this current violent collective punishment will gain them more support from palestinians or more resistance?
that ship has sailed
and because noone dares was the point
came fairly close to war in the summer of 2007.
forgot about that,but the point still stands
Does it really.
Israel controls every aspect of this society’s interaction with the world and the movement of people within this society is controlled and it has made that society fundamentally dependent on aid which it controls the flow of. 'the entire world is offering to help' is simply not true. The last country to try and take direct action to break the siege was Libya and Israel turned their ship away.
that was because all aid has to go through isreals foreign ministry(or something)
understandable,considering theres a string chance there were guns/ammo/more rockets on board
i didnt mention whether or not it was similar to a prison,i simply asked why this was the case
is one of the major contributors to the lack of decent plumbing or sewerage systems in the Gaza Strip ... or at least according to the BBC report I heard on FOOC about how some of the earthen dams they use to hold the sewage they can't remove or process burst drowning the people in some nearby houses
it's not so much that Israel has been blocking Palestine from developing into a functional state but that in a lot of ways it's also been actively de-developing the territories. Reducing the quality of infrastructure and living month on month.
Hamas are blameless ... but to pretend that Israel is defending itself against unprovoked terrorist attacks like they'd have the world believe is utter self delusion
its very gray,going back,and its depressingly easy to find justification for violence for both sides
what are youre views on this soapy?
it just seems in the news debates on the issue everyone is prepared to turn a blind eye to the 'crimes' of 'their' side.
That the current wave of bombings and incursions by Israel are in response to the recent rocket attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad is pretty undeniable, the militants in the Strip have brought this upon themselves and their people this time.
Unfortunately because of the conditions within the Strip that the Israeli Blockade has helped create it means that massive casualties are unavoidable, and the medical infrastructure to treat them simply does not exist anymore. Not that it was ever anywhere near first class.
But the Israeli military doesn't seem (from the various news reports I've read/watched) to be taking a whole lot of care to ensure the precision of it's action. Bombing UN schools crammed with refugees, who were there on Israeli orders, that the UN had informed them about and given them the GPS co-ordinates of?
Then rather than show 'weakness' or any accountability to blame the people sheltering there and accuse them of being terrorists, despite whatever testimony the UN may present.
Of course no other nation would allow rockets to be fired towards it's towns and cities but the nature of the response this time is only going to be counter productive in the long run. If the long term aim is lasting peace for both Israel and Palestine anyway.
This sort of action can't help but fuel further and increasingly desperate extremism amongst the Palestinian population.
and it's hard not to be cynical when a 'weak' government goes all out against the enemy on the eve of elections. NOT that I'm saying this is why it's happening but it may have a subconscious effect on why they may be very reluctant to back down.
are full of guns, bombs and ammo are they? If they were concerned about that in reference to the ship from Libya why did they not even board and then check? It is a deliberate and persistant attempt to break Gazan society....
i did not say UN aid trucks are full of guns,bombs and ammo
you know perfectly well what i mean,that hamas sees an opening theyll take it,and any way in or out is an opportunity to them
this ship from libya knew of the isreali blockade,its not that difficult to get aid in,you just need to use isreali approved channels.sensible really,they dont have the manpower to check every tanker going in on the spot,so they do it at a more suiting pace
"It is a deliberate and persistant attempt to break Gazan society"
i am now officially fed up with you
good day to you sir
if the reports from journalists and aid-workers within the territories (gaza in particular) are to be believed it's far far more difficult than you make it sound. as in barely even the most basic amount of what's needed has been getting through recently, and it's been getting worse.
I think Eno summed it up pretty well here: http://www.nme.com/news/brian-eno/41904
particularly the bit comparing it to the ghettoisation of the Jews
by aid now i mean,like,surviving
now go run a check on the number of UN resolutions re: palestinian self determination etc and see how many israel vetoed.
and to say that it is not difficult to get aid in is a joke.
as they are not on the security council.
varies does it not and does not have all member states at any one time. any member of the UN can vote on resolutions.
( i think )anyway now go see the list, it's quite impressive.
but Israel is not a permanent member of the security council (who can veto) and a general assembly resolution cannot be vetoed by one country as it simply requires a majority of countries, or in some limited circumstances a 2/3rds majority.
and gets the support of say, the US thats it...fucked.
if any member of the Security Council vetoes the resolution is gone and the USA is a staunch ally of Israel.
But Israel cannot veto it by itself.
I have no doubt that Israel has voted against anything to do with Palestine that is against its interests.
But that is only to be expected. How many resolutions were shot down by the USSR. How many resolutions about Taiwan wouldn't be vetoed by China?
resolutions involving human rights, basic human needs and the right of Palestinians self determination. so yes if thats against Israels interests then so be it.
but the fact that they voted against them suggests they feel there are?
cant remember the year but didnt US once veto against the right for all children to have access to clean potable water?
the security council has 5 permanent members and 10 temps.
I studied International Law....
and I wasn't trying to use it as an argument.
dum dah num
it's everyone's fault, Hamas are no good but Israel aren't really going about it the right way
that Jews have been living in Palestine all along, because it's a half truth at best. There WAS a small Jewish population living in what became Palestine, just as there was a small Jewish population living in just about every Middle Eastern country, but they were natives who lived side by side with the Muslim majority, who despite living under the oppressive rule of the Ottomanns never looked to self-determination. The roots of the modern conflict lie in Western European Zionist's aggressive buying up of land in Palestine in the lead up to the First World War, and the ensuing Arab and British reaction. The Israeli government has been using the facts on the ground strategy for the last century.
but through right or wrong there was a significant Jewish population in Palestine in 1946.
So because of that it was likely to be the natural choice for a Jewish state.
but it was a desperately immoral way of going about it.
And you could say the same thing about the illegal settlements in the West Bank the the Security Barrier. The latter makes a joke of the legal boundary between Palestine and Israel, but it's there now, and it reflects a new reality that Israel have imposed arbitrarily about where they end and the Palestinians begin. It's a viciously mercenary way to go about statehood, and it invites a vicious response.
is the reason for Gaza being the way it is.
Arguing over the rights and wrongs of the foundation of Israel is pointless. Israel is here now and it will stay here.
and your argument is basically "Sure, Israel got their way unfairly but it's all the Palestinian's fault for responding in kind."
Can't really be bothered debating this anymore. The Middle East makes me so tired and depressed
I was talking about the various wars fought by Israel and its neighbours.
and my argument was that it really is irrelevant whether the state was set up fairly because it does exist.
I suppose my point is that Israel has maintained the same mercenary attitude towards state building that it has had before it was even founded. To this day it continues placing more facts on the ground, because it knows it can get away with it, and this just incites more and more violence.
So they didn't sponsor an out and out ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians before 1946. Let's give em a hand for that. Buying up land, deliberately displacing poorer people of a different religion to create a demographic weight is still a deeply immoral practise that was bound to create serious problems.
I reject the "Jews have had mean stuff done to them, so they deserve their own place" argument in the first place. In the history of mankind, there has NEVER been a religious/ethnic dispute which has been satisfactorily solved by someone saying "all you lot go over there and stay there".
what happened 1946-47 could very well be termed as ethnic cleansing.
in the years before 1939.
It's all counter-productive though.
But Goldsteinbergheimer over there cast aspersion upon my good name as a historian godammit
and I know where he lives.
Firstly this is such a touchingly namby-pamby thing to say, secondly your argument falls down in a number of ways.
Yes the Jews were expelled from Palestine, and it was bad thing but THAT WAS MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS AGO. A lot of people have been expelled from their homes over the last millenia. Bad things happen. But are the Swedish making claims to the Midlands? Are the Moroccans making claims to the south of Spain? It's patently ridiculous to base an aggressive displacement of other peoples based upon where somebody who had the same religion as you was living in pre-medieval times.
As fullerov points out fostering grievances is pointless, and using ancient history as justification for self-determination over other people's self-determination is inherently wrong.
getting back even close to what is arguably theirs? Why do the Jews have a special case?
There is a muddying of waters when it comes to this business of "a clear sense of their homeland". Certainly all religious Jews know their origins, but whether every Jew views Palestine as their physical inheritance is a very questionable assertion. The original Zionist movement wanted as little entanglement with the religious side of Judaism as possible; Herzl himself wanted to lobby the Brits into giving them Uganda. Whatever your take on it it's a generalisation of a culture and certainly not justification for what happened in the 20th century.
It seems almost petty to point out that the vast majority of Jewish people live outside of Israel, whilst the vast majority of Native Americans and Aboriginals have to lump what's apologetically thrown their way in what was their ancestor's homelands. Again, bad things happen, we try to make amends without creating new wrongs. Yes Jews were often given a raw deal, but they aren't given a special dispensation for displacing the shit out of a people who had been living there for just as long as the ancient Jews originally had.
but in 1940 Poland didn't exist? Well it had been aggressively invaded by two aggressibe belligerant and abhorant regimes and on maps it was divided between the invaders, Stalin and Hitler had made a pact to divide poland up....no other world leaders or countries (apart from axis powers) acknowledged these new borders, Poland was (by any standards totally illegally invaded, it was very clear cut...when a country is overun by extremist foreign powers then you can say that the country no longer exists but since this was merely conquered land in a war that was ongoing, and that there was not a period of peace when the state of Poland could not raise its flag or have a gov in its country then i dont think you can say there was no state of Poland. It is not a good example imo
their demographic spreads over they are persecuted/discriminated (historically) to a greater or lesser degree by all these countries govs.
As opposed say to forming a new state of Khalistan in India, cos i dont really think that sikhs are really disadvantaged to such a degree (they tend to be quite prosperous) and any more official segregation might run the risk of creating tension and problems
we should just talk down here?
and a fringe group? come off it...
suddenly a lot makes sense.
with a one state solution?
it's pie in the sky, because israel/ usa wouldn't allow it, but what would be wrong with it?
why should any religion be entitled to a state?
the region was peaceful, with jewish people living there, then a jewish state was formed and all hell broke loose.
one state, not two state. quite a difference, there.