Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
you're needed now more than ever.
I woke up to this
Is Israel actually trying to provoke an all-out war? Looks like it...
not a pretty situation, regardless of who is to "blame".
Hearing news about the Arab/Israeli conflict is a lot like being asked by your son to go halves on a mother's day gift for the old dear. She's not MY mother, dammit! Leave me alone!
Now I'm not being funny or anything, but I hope they all kill each other.
is depressing. So many idiots in the world. This is why I usually stay away from politics and news. I prefer to get on with fun stuff. Terrible attitude I know.
On the contrary, it's the only logical attitute. The religious have dedicated themselves throughout history to the betterment of mankind, but it always ends up one step behind their murderous slanging matches with other sects who believe THEY can better mankind better.
And all along there's been one group of humans who have never embarked on Jihad - the Stoners and their erstwhile acolytes, the Crazy Party Sluts.
There's a lesson for us all there.
it's totally about one bunch of crooks against another - with both sides claiming a bogus 'divine right' to justify their actions...
I usually call those "religious people".
It is worth noting that this desire for a state for people of the same faith was partly as a result of extreme anti-semitism throughout Europe and the USA.
If he is, he'll have to get the bus, won't he?
I meant "If he is [planning to go back], he'll have to get the bus..."
All better now.
for having no actual government for the last decade and a half.
and the 80s - Israel makes me sick
because you pretend not to be one, but always put forward views that coincide with right-wing nutters' views.
So, fuck off
no matter how twee we wish they were in the Knessnet (sic)
the problem is 'entrepreneurs of hate' in the political elites on both sides of war. depressingly few people on either side are willing to challenge the norms
You should get a job in journalism and the you can talk shite all day and get paid for it. Perhaps you already do.
this isn't a left/right issue at all. you're the stupidest person i've ever encountered
what you really mean is "refuse to accept Israel's right to exist", right?
exactly. the Palestinian PM wrote in the Washington Post:
"â€œWe present this clear message: If Israel will not allow Palestinians to live in peace, dignity and national integrity, Israelis themselves will not be able to enjoy those same rights.... If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967,â€¦â€?"
The core 1948 issues? Essentially, the Hamas led government promises Israel permanent peace if Israel dissolves itself.
But to Traynor this is all about not being 'trampled on'. What a fucking moron.
The quote you post is the correct assessment of teh situation. The Palestinian people have been shat on since 1947 as I said above, and, until that changes, they have the will to continue to fight for their human rights.
The situation with Hamas both infuriates and wryly amuses me. Ultimately it shows the major fault and fallacy with Western attempts to bring democracy to the world i.e. that to allow people democracy you have to let them vote whoever they choose into power. Regardless of what Hamas has done in the past they are the party that the Palestinian people have chosen to govern them and Israel, US etc. have no choice but to respect that.
But to say that it is completely one-sided ignores the fact that Hamas refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist.
My own view is that Israel must withdraw from all occupied territories before any progress can be made. But there will be no change until Israel, the Palestinians and everyone else stop worrying about whose to blame for what happened in the past and start to work toward the future.
then you support the blowing up of bridges then? to isolate hezbollah?
so many acts of aggression have taken place on both sides that it seems neither will recognise the other's right to exist. palestinians elected hamas for a reason, and as the legally elected government, they're never going to get a chance to prove they're capable of governing effectively and fairly while they're just branded as terrorists.
the problem is, it's not just about blame and rights; i think the question of 'honour' comes into it pretty heavily; the impression i get is that on both sides, to be seen to back down or forget the ills of the past would be shameful, so some kind of agreement needs to be reached that both parties feel honours their respective nations, creeds and cultures.
It's about human rights.
of course it's about human rights, but not solely by any means. it's about political power, territory, cultural differences, history/past grudges, national/cultural pride and an enormous sense of residual and increasingly vague anger and racial hatred as a result of everything that has preceded this situation [and i think it's important to recognise that this anger is a factor in itself, and isn't simply going to evaporate if a solution is reached, it's going to take time to dissipate].
and to exclude any of these factors from one's mind is to narrow the chances of understanding or resolving the situation.
All of what you mention is the result of the conflict not the reason for it.
To emphasise issues such as "racial hatred", "cultural differences", "cultural pride" etc. is to cast doubts on the reason of the people.
why do palestinians care so little about their own human rights?
"it seems neither will recognise the other's right to exist"
do Palestine recognise their own right to exist? they allow themselves to be governed by a stateless clique of murderous gangsters...
The Palestinian people should have the right to live in what is called Israel. The argument of the Palestinian government is that whatever state that exists should allow all residents, whether Israeli or Palestinian to live anywhere in the land that used to be Palestine before the second world war. Israel kicked out the Palestinians to ensure that there was a majority of voting citizens who would support a government that was prejudiced.
Recently the Israeli government re-assereted its vies that Israel should always have a majority of Jews.
The Palestine government's view that Israel, as it is currently constituted, that is, the Israel that exists and has a government that is a result of ethnic cleanisng after Israel's formation, is entirely correct. Palestine wants a government that truly represents all the people who live there. When the Palestineian government implies that Israel has no right to exists it means that the government of the state of Israel that prevents Palestinians from living and voting there. The Palestinian government's view is entirely correct.
Israel, as the state that currently exists, is unacceptable.
israel exists as a result of ethnic cleansing? perhaps you can give the demographic data for 'Palestine' around the time of the Balfour declaration.
Yours was entirely reasonable and I can't pretend to have any better answer.
for pointing out that some Palestinians actually want to kill Israeli people?
Nice though it would be to believe the Israeli/Palestian situations IS as clear cut as Israel = nasty right-wingers, Palestine = oppressed people, it isn't quite as clear cut as that and there are people on both sides who have entrench themselves in diametrically opposed positions.
and I feel this entitles me to make basic mistakes.
So, you ignore everything I've said elsewhere and ask for a repitition?
I don't propose to tell the Palestinian people how to respond to attacks.
but expected from you as you see most things in completely black and white terms.
nothing will change while any of what you've said is true, and nothing will change while Hamas refuse Israel's basic right to exist.
everyone is to blame for this situation, there is no "right" and there is no "wrong".
I repeat, the Palestinian government, rightly, object to a state of Israel that was create in a way that deliberately ensured a Jewish majoirty forever.
"Israel's basic right to exist" is an oft-repeated and deliberately dishonest way of presenting the discussion about the problems.
As currently constituted, Israel has no moral "right to exist". A fair truly representative state does have a right to exist and the Israeli people have a right to live there.
Hamas constantly harping on about it not existing is not going to change one little thing. these people are now there, and thus Israel will exist in one form or another if Hamas like it or not.
Nobody's hands are clean in this, or do you disagree with that as well?
The Israeli people should remain and so a country should exist that represents everyone. But, the state of Israel as it is at present is unworkable.
so you don't support a two-state solution to the problem?
Only if that is what the Paelstinian people are willing to accept that without duress.
Showing your true views again.
and not how the leaders of Hamas are as much of a bunch of thugs as the leaders of Israel.
Would you prefer the Palestinian government to be polite?
The government was elected partly because the Palestinian people wanted a government that didn't take any shit.
wasn't being confrontational at all. calm down.
aye, good one
so now we have a Palestinian government that won't take any shit [which, you claim is a good thing] and an Israeli government that won't take any shit [although apparently this is a bad thing] and the whole world is going to go to hell as a result.
Nice one, craig.
The political reality, that I have attempted to discuss, is clear, and, as I have said, the the view of an observer must, logically, support either the existence of Israel or else the human rights of the Palestinians.
Despite this, you still return to the refrain of it is difficut to understand or both are as bad as oneanother etc.
you're in any position to lecture anybody about notions of "reality".
you view everything in completely black and white terms. you are not one to be giving anyone else lectures on things in the real world.
you're as blinkered as those in charge of Israel and Palestine.
I have some understaind and I have a consistent political outlook.
I know that it is not very modern to be sure about one's politics.
It's not that it's "not very modern to be sure about one's politics", it's just that it's impractical to take such a rigid unwavering moral absolutist stance.
The world isn't black-and-white. You can't realisticall ysay the situation is unambigous because any objective analysis says that it is.
Reading this thread you take an admirably strong view, which is good, but your view is as subjective as any other view on the situation. If you talk to people if Palestine or Israel you'll find many different viewpoints and that the situation is much more ambiguous than you'd like it to be.
because Israel as it stands now is the direct result of living under 50 years of duress from most of their neighbours.
Israel as it exists is the result of its inception and formation.
the fact that Israel was invaded by six of its neighbours mere hours after it's formation, and the number of other wars since then, and the fact that even now, nearly sixty years down the line, only one of its neighbours chooses to respect its right to exist has had no effect on the Israeli psyche at all?
I see your point.
However, that does not excuse the Israeli's governments actions because it should never have existed in its present form. Therefore, its resistance to attack is merely a continuation of its formation which was an act of war.
"its formation which was an act of war."
how many nations are formed bloodlessly, traynor?
both jews and muslims have had to contend with a hell of a lot over the past thousand years, and i think they've both got an extremely strong sense of cultural and religious pride and righteousness; but more than that, it is this sense that to an extent has given them the necessary strength and solidarity to fight their corners for this long. you can't just dismiss that. if they were secular parties, this situation would not have escalated to quite the level it has.
note: i am NOT suggesting that the situation would not exist or be serious, or that they should become secular; merely that their cultural backgrounds have an enormous part to play in this, and to ignore it and just blame one [admittedly deeply dysfunctional] factor is idiotic.
But the reasons for the conflict are political.
I have mentioned why Jewish people wanted a state (of Israel) after the second world war. The Western governments used this fact to create a foothold in the middle east.
You talk of "secular parties". Every Israeli government has been opposed to any rights for Palestinians that match those of Israelis regardless of that government's degree of commitment to the Jewish faith.
It is common to always posit resistance from people who are Muslims as a religious issue. The conflict is about politics and human rights.
Perhaps if you read other people's views you'd realise that.
What he did was to ignore the political discussion and just posit an intellectually superior view over people from another country.
What he did was point out that both sides have people responsible for increasing the hatred of the other to make political capital out of the situation and very few figureheads who'll take an objective outlook.
That's common sense.
see also: civil rights movement in USA in the 1960s and anti-semitism in Europe in the 1930s
you do realise that the area in which the state of israel was created was majority jewish before its creation. there was an arab minority, but they left during the 1948 war (just as the israelis in the nearby arab nations did). the big difference though is that israel welcomed the incoming nations, unlike the arab nations who largely refused to take in the refugees; they basically left them homeless to use as propaganda. if we're talking about people shitting on the palestinians, the arab nations did a lot more of it (especially when we consider it was their warmongering and refusal to accept israel that led to the palestinian state being split up in 1948).
already large numbers of jews in the middle east before World War II, the actions of Nazi Germany simply speeded the process up considerably.
Discussion of the formation of a "Jewish homeland" goes back to the post-World War I assimilation of Palestine (as it was then) and Transjordan from the dismantled Ottoman state into the British Empire.
wasn't Palestine simply a state that had both Jews and Arabs living together?
I would actually like to know more about that period. Was the state broadly peaceful. Though I believe the British were still in charge in those days so I guess it would have been a police state. Hmm...
it wasn't really a state at all but technically the territory belonged to britain
and it is clear that you ignore what I've said elsewhere.
I disagreed with it. That's different.
just thought I'd mention it...
stay safe mate!
the DiSser in question is Grinner aka Andy
his blog is here
having read the entire thread I have to say that I agree with Traynor - though possibly for (some) different reasons
I should perhaps add that I also agree with Hamas when they say that 'The State of Israel' has no right to exist
I'm either going to be shot down for this or ignored...
This is a problem without a solution...
in ideological, ethical or religious terms - I was thinking more that the State of Israel is an entirely concocted and illegal project based on phoney assumptions and divisive posturing that hide its true nature
But now they're here...
most people know where my sympathies tend to lie with regards to this subject.
This issue has gone beyond right and wrong, there are simply TOO MANY people on both sides who are unwilling to compromise to the neccessary degree...
absurd to say there is 'no right or wrong', something is allowed to be objectively wrong, from a common sense point of view, like torture or james blunt. so i don't think to side with the palestinians gives you a 'black or white wordlview', although traynor does betray such a thing elsewhere. i side with the palestinians 100%, and i certainly hope i don't see things in black and white. it's just siding with humanity against fascism.
again - I think a lot of people don't really see what is/has actually gone on here to create 'Israel' as it currently exists
I side with both the jews and the arabs who are perpetually beaten with the divisive 'hate-stick' while 'Israel' grows daily into the hideous Frankenstein's monster that both Hamas and Al-Qaeda are mere embryos of...
Without going into too much detail on my position the following page is rather enlightening;
that there is objective right and wrong. in this case, objectively the wrong lies as much with the arab nations as it does with israel. i dont see how, given the historical facts, one can draw any other conclusion.
the fact that they supported violence against jews in the mandate of palestine, which was perhaps one of the things that led to it being partitioned rather than kept as a unified state.
the fact that it was the arab nations refusal to accept any israeli state that led to the war of 1948 and consequently to the partiotioning of the planned palestinian state.
the fact that they largely refused to take in palestinian refugees from israel (unlike israel, who took in jewish refugees from the arab states), preferring to leave them as propaganda tools.
the fact that they continue to support terrorism against israel.
Why should the Arab nations have accepted a so-called 'Jewish State' imposed on them ?
The war of 1948 was a consequence of many factors - not least the terrorist forces within Jewish communities (that went on to run the country) and the British withdrawing their mandate because same said 'Jewish' terrorists beheaded British military and bombed hotels
The Israelis themselves have supported Arab terrorism when it has suited them (hence my 'Frankenstein's monster' reference to Hamas)
'various sources, among them United Press International , Le Canard enchaÃ®nÃ© and L'HumanitÃ© have highlighted that Hamas' early growth - before its official founding and the creation of the military branch - had been supported by the Mossad as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". Furthermore, the French investigative newspaper Le Canard enchaÃ®nÃ© claimed that Shin Bet had also supported Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO and Fatah, in an attempt to give "a religious slant to the conflict, in order to make the West believe that the conflict was between Jews and Muslims", thus supporting the controversial thesis of a "clash of civilizations"'
"Reuven Paz, former head of research for the Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence agency), ... described Hamas as "an authentic product of Palestinian society under Israeli rule."
but all of this is history
The here and now is that for 50odd years the US has poured BILLIONS of (taxpayer's) dollars into Israel in return for arms contracts (and worse) in order to have a strategic territorial position and cultivate a doctrine of religious zeal in order to make PROFIT
IT HAS TO STOP before some nutter in the Knesset or MOSSAD or Shin Bet decides to do a field test of their nuclear arsenal
it's certainly not illegal
are based on justice and social order - then it's definitely illegal (or should be)
but I was referring to the actual land-grab
Robin Miller in "The Expulsion of the Palestinians 1947-1948, says, "Before 1948, Jews owned only 1.5 million of the 26 million dunams of land in Palestine . . . After the eviction of the Palestinians, Israel controlled 20 million dunams, an increase from 6% to 77% of the total. They simply stole an entire country."
some would say they left of their own accord, just like the 900,000 jews who left the surrounding arab states for the same reason; they didnt feel safe.
They fled of their own accord
Though I agree that Traynor appears to viewing things too black and white.
The logic for why Israel shouldn't exist is a fair one. It's the same reason Northern Ireland shouldn't exist, surely?
Suggesting that Israel shouldn't exist, however, should not be compared as synonymous with the region returning to a pre-1947 state. I think people who bring up 60 year old history to state the Arabs were being as bad aren't really seeing the point that it would be nice to have a new state that fairly encompassed all the faiths and races within it.
Obviously, I have zero faith in humanity that this could happen, mainly from speaking to otherwise liberal and reasonable Jews and Muslims who can suddenly come up with the most knee-jerk, fascist attitudes regarding this when it comes up. It's very sad. :(
and worrying and depressing
the truth is that the history of Zionism (a secular movement) has been reprogrammed and propagandised into a conflict between the 'divine right' of jews to have a homeland and the 'murderous arabs' who seek to deny them that 'right'
more troubling is the fact that any attempt to balance the propaganda is regarded as anti-semitism or even holocaust denial
some simple facts are considered as so controversial to be dismissed in an entirely reactionary way
I'm personally of the opinion that the Israeli Defence Force and the powers that be in Israel are INTENTIONALLY trying to draw Iran and Syria into conflict in order drag the US military into the fight
and it fills me with DREAD
will not get involved in all probability.
Unless Israel is losing. Which won't happen...
Well it certainly could end up in a losing position.
Egypt and Jordan won't fight.
Lebanon and Syria and (at a push) Iran's airforce would be beaten
how powerful is the jewish lobby? more powerful than the oil lobby? i wish people would make their mind up
the conflict - a few days old - is pulling down stock markets the world over and pushing up oil prices
Israel's (unofficial) nuclear 'deterrent' is also a bargaining/blackmail weapon - there is some evidence in certain quarters that both Bush Senior and Bush Junior were given ultimata from the Israelis that if they didn't instigate their respective Gulf Wars Israel would launch its own (non-conventional?) pre-emptive strikes
Truth is the US is already involved - the missiles, helicopters, fighters and various other weapons being dropped around the middle east right now are both made in the USA and bought from the USA by American taxpayers' money gifted to Israel as 'aid'
it makes me sick
The State of Israel acts in the name of Judaism in precisely the same way as the Bush administration acts in the name of liberty
were you an opponent of the first gulf war, anschul?
ah, i thought you were going to trot out international law again. not to worry.
because they should have recognised that there were a lot of jews in what was palestine, and that given the tensions that had existed in palestine there was a danger of the jewish population being oppressed if the entire area were to be a unified state.
and yeah, you're right, there were some zionist terrorists, but if i was going to be really annoying id point out that theres a double standard amongst many; apparently the palestinians and those of the other arab states are 'justified' in their terrorism, yet the israelis werent...
as for the support for hamas thing, the fact that the israeli secret services have been idiots doesnt alter the reality that hamas are bigoted, violent cunts.
and yeah, you're right, it does have to stop. but the fact remains that the arab states seem to refuse to accept israel has a right to exist, regardless of what they may have signed in 1967, and whilst that happens, i think israel has a right to defend itself.
until USA taxpayers start actually showing some opposition to spending billions supporting israel, its really none of my business who they give their money to, just like its none of my business that people in arab states give money to anti israeli terrorist organisations. id like it if neither did it, but i doubt itll happen.
one could argue for a thousand years (or longer) about who the bad guys really are - so we'll leave that to one side for the moment
I just wanted to pick up on one thing though;
by what logic do you deduce that the strategy Israel is currently employing is in any way 'defending' itself?
Israel's government has a deeprooted paranoia of seeming 'weak' in it's relations with its neighbours.
Therfore she uses disproportionate force as a means of deterrence...
i think israel has gone too far. im not going to blindly support them.
i think that a military response was required and was justified, given that hezbollah are supported by the lebanese government, but i think its sad that said response will cause things to escalate.
i think the big problem is that sometimes israel decides to act in the same way as those who attack it do, which is a problem because israel can do a hell of a lot more damage.
thats the big thing that i want to emphasise though, is that if the roles are reversed, if palestinians are taken by the israelis and then the palestinians retaliate (we'll put aside that hezbollah took the soldiers for now) then many would be quick to explain away the actions of the palestinians as somehow justified. the big difference is that israel is more powerful. yes, the extent to which its taking its actions is wrong, but i dont necessarily think the actions on principle are wrong.
and with power comes responsibility
or in this case irresponsibilty
is it not outrageous that the EU will foot the bill for the reconstruction of gaza?
in the sense that politically the left of the 'west' tends to broadly support the Palestinian cause and the right broadly supports the Israeli cause.
but it's not intrinsically a left/right issue and the division that you describe hasn't always been so. it's a bit like abortion ... i think that it could arguably be philosophically consistent for the right to support abortion on libertarian grounds and the left to oppose it on the grounds that its fighting for the voicless etc etc.
That this is why Traynor referred to you as a 'right-wing nutter', so your response was sort of missing the point of his reasoning.
I'm not saying one or the other is intrinsically left of right, but you will generally find politically rightwing people are also anti-Arab and pro-Israeli.
Abortion has never been a left/right issue: it's always an authoritarian/liberal issue, but in general leftwing parties follow a more liberal view and rightwing a more authoritarian one. In this country at least. Though actually even under Thatcher the Tories were still quite a liberal party. It's just Blair who's a fuckhead really.
in the U.S. is that strong, where was American in 1948,1956,1967 1973 and 1982...
what if you're in a position where you have to choose one war or the other?
traynor saying "teh".
I see where this is going and it is off the topic of this thread
I'm not trying to avoid your question - I just can't imagine a scenario where I'd be forced to 'choose one war or the other' and not in relevance to this topic
perhaps you can rephrase the question?
you can't imagine such a scenario? what about the first gulf war? either you go to war or you allow a different war to take place. ach
our DiS man in Beirut - grinner - has updated his blog today
despite being in the midst of the action you could say he's in a little less of a panic than I am
good for him
to see that Andy/grinner has written another blog entry
seems things are getting more tense
I hope he stays safe
The same goes for anyone potentially caught in the crossfire, whichever side they're on...
"Having now safely returned home, my mind can't fail but turn back to Lebanon. I miss Beirut. Depressingly, the Israeli assault on Lebanon appears to be dropping off the news radar here in the UK. The Guardian is admirably keeping up its 3-4 daily coverage, but The Independent has only devoted one page on each of the last two days to the crisis - while soft news stories and fashion features remain a staple."
He's back, fear not
The Palestinian people elected a government that isn't willing to lie down and be trampled on.
Governments in the West showed their true colours by stopping aid to Palestine because they didn't like the fact that the Palestinian people elected a government that isn't willing to lie down and be trampled on.
Israel started to harrass the Palestinian people including firing shells at a beach.
A group of Palestinians kidnapped one soldier as an act of defiance.
Israel goes on a mad inasane killing spree.
There is no ambiguity about this conflict. Either one supports the worst perpetrator of human rights in the world, Israel, a country that routinely invades other countries and kills their people, or one supports the people of Palestine who have been shat on since 1947. (Or, you can stick your head up your arse.) To suggest that it is a difficult conflict to understand or that both sides are as bad as one another, etc. is to, in effect, offer full support for the murdering bastards in the Knesset.
Traynor, you are a very silly boy