"What goes around, comes around" seems perfectly apposite to me.

Except that the phrase is generally used to mean 'do bad things to others and expect bad things to happen to you'. I don't recall Palestinians being involved in the Jewish holocaust.

edit: wow you're pompous!! 😆

Mr Woppit, by originally failing to understand the precise meaning of the phrase'anti-semitic' you kinda give away your lack of knowledge in this issue.

Not at all, I am simply using the phrase in the way it is generally used – to mean "anti-jewish", as once again, I have already said earlier.

I was trying to widen the discussion to reflect on the greater tragedy of human history, of which this situation is just one sorry example, but I now see that I have merely enabled the champions of sidetracked particularity to start drilling.

White phosphorous on a civillian population? However you dress it up, that's not a nice thing to do

edit: wow you're pompous!!

Sorry if it reads like that. I'm actually attempting clarity..

Except that the phrase is generally used to mean 'do bad things to others and expect bad things to happen to you'. I don't recall Palestinians being involved in the Jewish holocaust.

I take your point. I can't think of a handy phrase that describes the handing-on of maltreatment to the inncoent, and then from the those affected, to other underserving receivers, but that's what I was trying to get at. That seems to be how this stuff gets started all over, to me.

Perhaps if more people laid their HiFi cable the right way round, the world would be a happier place, eh?

Whilst I think about it – if all the Palestinian population want to do is simply get on with their life, then surely some responsibility for their situation should be recognised as belonging to Hamas, who perpetuate the situation, unlike their rivals in Fatah, who appear to be more interested in discussion.

As previously observed, Palestinians are interested in raising their kids, getting a job, making their lives better. If there was a party that had been able to deliver that for them, they would support it. However, no Palestinian leader has delivered anything whatsoever, because Israel has not given them anything. Palestinians feel helpless and powerless and unable to do anything other than make a feeble protest by supporting Hamas, who, as they can't offer anything in this life, make their promises for the next.

If Israel wanted peace, they could have it tomorrow on terms that any reasonable person would consider favourable. However, they see that if they keep going the way they are, then the Palestinians will eventually be driven out of the land, by starvation, or bombs, and, with America's help, a Jewish state can be established over the whole of hsitoric Palestine.

Vile as they may be, they are probably correct in that judgement.

However, no Palestinian leader has delivered anything whatsoever, because Israel has not given them anything. Palestinians feel helpless and powerless and unable to do anything other than make a feeble protest by supporting Hamas, who, as they can't offer anything in this life, make their promises for the next.

Yes. Shite all round, eh?

If you were the Israeli government, how would you open a discussion with Hamas, and what would you give them?

Although I think Ehud Barak adopted a conciliatory posture in the past and got it thrown back at him, if memory serves…

Except that the phrase is generally used to mean 'do bad things to others and expect bad things to happen to you'. I don't recall Palestinians being involved in the Jewish holocaust.

Which was the point I was trying to make earlier and is certainly a lot more explicit and saves me some typing.

I take your point. I can't think of a handy phrase that describes the handing-on of maltreatment to the inncoent, and then from the those affected, to other underserving receivers, but that's what I was trying to get at. That seems to be how this stuff gets started all over, to me.

Did you read the whole of my last post? There is a WH Auden quote that sums this up quite well.

Although I think Ehud Barak adopted a conciliatory posture in the past and got it thrown back at him, if memory serves..

.

What did he offer, concretely? Nothing. Hence the current situation.

gonefishin – Member

Did you read the whole of my last post? There is a WH Auden quote that sums this up quite well.

"…those to whom evil is done, do evil in return."

Ah yes. Sorry, I missed that. Perfectly put.

… and religion is still the elephant in the room.

Surely this is one example that shows religion is not always a problem, cultural differences which cause conflict can come from a variety of sources.

In this case the Jewish, Christian and Muslims populations were getting on as well as you can expect a 19th century population groups to get on under the Ottoman empire.

The problems started to occur when Europeans decided another group of "mainly" eastern Europeans should be moved to a different continent.

This would nt have been a problem in the 19th Century as which ever side had the greatest military strength would have just wiped the other side out. However the world is nicer place now adays and that cant happen but we dont seem to have any other ideas how to sort it out.

In fact the Christian + Muslim Arabs still get on reasonably well so surely religion isnt the main problem.

Also many Zionists were not religious

modern Zionist movement, beginning in the late 19th century, was mainly founded by secular Jews,

They simply believed they were descended from people who had inhabited and had a kingdom in Palestine in the past, because at the time the Bible was also probably the best historical source for the region. Currently the bible is seen as basically correct back to 600BC before that point its not clear what is over exaggeration and what is totally made up.

It gets on my nerves that people seem to think you can separate "religion" from "culture" especially before the second world war.

DrJ – Member

Although I think Ehud Barak adopted a conciliatory posture in the past and got it thrown back at him, if memory serves..

.

What did he offer, concretely? Nothing. Hence the current situation.

Withdrawal from south Lebanon, wasn't it? Actually done, as I recall. Could have been something to build on, maybe – the Israeli forces were there in response to an attack by Hezbollah, I think.

Perhaps that wasn't enough, but it could have been at least, a start. Didn't he go on to address other issues?

scu98rkr

Interesting.

Currently the bible is seen as basically correct back to 600BC before that point its not clear what is over exaggeration and what is totally made up.

I think that bit about getting 2 elephants and 2 kangaroos and everything on that boat thingy was a bit made up.

Mohammed was a Christian when he was a nipper.

Jesus was a jew when he was a nipper, but then converted to Buddhism, and when he got into a bit of bother, his mates smuggled him out and he went to spend the rest of his long life in Srinigar.

I think that bit about getting 2 elephants and 2 kangaroos and everything on that boat thingy was a bit made up.

Im not really sure what your point is. Im trying to say that 19th Century secular ie non-religious Zionists believed that the parts of Bible related to the history of the Kingdoms of Israel/Judah just as strongly as religious Jews. Because frankly at the time it was the best historical source.

Hence why even though they weren't religious they want to create a state in Palestine, at the time the religious jews didnt cause they still thought the messiah would create it.

My Gran lived in Jerusalem in the 20's – her family left the area as they could sense the tension rising, she's told me how more and more houses were being turned into fortresses…

In the 6 days war most of Israel's neighbours conspired to lauch an unprovoked genocidal attack on the state of Israel. But they lost and quite naturally Israel has since taken advantage of the land they gained as a result of winning the war – pretty much like the Uk , USA and most western nations have done in the distant and not so distant past.

If you don't want to lose territory then don't pick on a nation that basically doesn't f*** around when it come to defending itself

Is it? I think they must have some other motives that I can't quite grasp.

As previously observed, Palestinians are interested in raising their kids, getting a job, making their lives better. If there was a party that had been able to deliver that for them, they would support it. However, no Palestinian leader has delivered anything whatsoever, because Israel has not given them anything. Palestinians feel helpless and powerless and unable to do anything other than make a feeble protest by supporting Hamas, who, as they can't offer anything in this life, make their promises for the next.

No better way of justifying it's actions than having a terrorist threat on it's doorstep in the forms of hizbollah and Hamas. Israel will continue to wreck any kind of meaningful peace negotiations until it has achieved it's goals.

It's old war propaganda, Demonize your enemy to justify your actions.