[Closed] Ken Livingstone steps in to calm antisemitism row in the Labour Party.

He wasn't "merely referring", he was using it to justify why he thinks Obama is pro-In.

So, you're suggesting that people can make a simple factual statement, that on the face of it wouldn't be racist, but that the overtones and context in which they use that statement can make it deeply offensive and racist?

Interesting...

So Livingstone won't apologise

What can he apologise for? What he said wasn't racist so he can't apologise for that. If he apologises for any other aspect of his words it won't satisfy the people who want an apology.

Perhaps the media and his colleagues should appologise for making a mountain out of a [s]molehill[/s] completely flat bit of land.

ninfan - Member

So, you're suggesting that people can make a simple factual statement, that on the face of it wouldn't be racist, but that the overtones and context in which they use that statement can make it deeply offensive and racist?

Johnson was never criticised for saying Obama was kenyan, as I've already covered and as I'm sure you understand. He was criticised for weaving Obama's ethnicity into a false explanation of why he'd made a statement about europe, which Johnson wanted to pretend was anti-British. It's because he is black innit.

I think declaring it to be definitely racist is a reach; I think similiarly to Shah's posts, it could simply be stupid and ignorant, and tbh the context supports that since his entire theory was absolute gibberish. But what I'm taking issue with here isn't Boris but your depiction of what Boris was criticised for, which isn't just whataboutery, it's false whataboutery.

Any chance that we can stop debating this fabricated nonsensical farce?

We're expected to be stupid enough to be distracted by it, and just look at us bleating along like good little citizens

Can we not get back to the real topic that they really don't want us thinking too sensibly about which is the EU

He wasn't "merely referring", he was using it to justify why he thinks Obama is pro-In.

No he wasn't - read the article it is [url= http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7095695/UK-and-America-can-better-friends-than-ever-Mr-Obama-if-we-LEAVE-the-EU-says-Boris-Johnson.html ]here[/url], his basic argument was that it is hypocritical for the US to encourage us to stay when they guard their sovereignty so rigorously.

The article you link doesn't say what you imply; a bust of Churchill was loaned to Bush and returned (this was arranged before Obama moved in, incidentall) but the earlier bust given to Johnson replaced it.

The [url= http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-case-of-the-two-churchills ]New Yorker[/url] article is pretty clear, there were two almost identical busts, one lent and one owned. The owned one stayed where it was in the private side of the White House. The borrowed one was returned when Oval office was redecorated for Obama and as I understand it was replaced by a bust of Martin Luther King - it is hardly a big issue but the story was true, albeit too much has been read into it.

he Labour Party absolutely has a problem with anti-senitism and Jews

Another made up #jamba-fact which you keep repeating without any actual evidence...

mefty - Member

The New Yorker article is pretty clear, there were two almost identical busts, one lent and one owned. The owned one stayed where it was in the private side of the White House.

OK, I'm wrong in that minor detail, but it still proves the point exactly as well. The entire theory about Obama cleansing the white house of british regalia is completely false. And yet Boris still regurgitates it, in the title of the article. Now why do we think he did that? Maybe he wrote all the rest then realised he was under the word limit and had to squeeze in a quick Obama anecdote? And it just so happened that the anecdote he innocently chose was one that depicts him as someone that dislikes Britain because of his ethnicity. That'll be right.

But anyway, this is all getting further distracted from my point, which is a rebuttal of Ninfan's whataboutery suggestion that Johnson was criticised for simply saying Obama is Kenyan. Which I'm sure is just as innocent.

Oh, sorry, I thought the 'point' was that Ken had a long history of making clever comments about Jews.

And yet Boris still regurgitates it, in the title of the article.

He didn't, the title of the article is

UK and America can be better friends than ever Mr Obama... if we LEAVE the EU

Um, no. That was the Sun's headline- "Boris Johnson: UK and America can be better friends than ever Mr Obama... if we LEAVE the EU". The title of the article is "Something mysterious happened when Barack Obama entered the Oval Office in 2009."

But let's not worry too much about that, since again it makes no difference to the actual argument.

That's probably fair, I read it as the first line.

EDIT: ...which I think it probably is as the Sun seems to embolden the first sentence of every article.

Well with [i]that[/i] resolved, I'm sure it can only be a matter of time before we agree on everything else 😆

@footflaps, @eden (and others) why don't you read the piece @mefty linked to, or the numerous other articles written or follow the news ? I've been posting on Labour's problems with anti-semtism for more than year now and the issue is now finally being covered by the mainsteam media and we have 3 - three ! - investigations commissioned by Labour in just a few weeks.

@outofbreath - if you are being asked 16 times to apologise on air and the shadow chancellor is telling you tooyou'd think theynare doing somfor a reason. He was asked to apologise for causing offence, he apologised to zcornyn but absolutely made a point of not apologising to the Jewish community.

On the Boris / Churchill bust issue you need to hear Obama's full reply at the press conference - he dealt with the issue very eloquently - having heard that I am 100% on Obama's side on this, Boris made a fool of himself
---------------------

Junkyard in many respects this derserves its own post. You have strong views on Israel but not for one second do I think you are anti-semitic or a Jew hater and I don't say that just as you told us last year your wife was Jewish. From what we see here I cannot imagine would would harras Jews going about their daily business by singing Rockets over Tel-Aviv, you understand and demonstrate the difference between a strong dislike for Isreali government policies and the Jewish people. I think for people here to suggest otherwise is a disgrace.

Sorry I have edited - see above, but I can understand why you thought it and wouldn't raise it.

Problem is, as their position in indefensible, they just resort to shouting anti-Semite rather than try and actually rationally defend the murder of women and children for sport defence.

Ken said something. Someone got offended. So f***** what. Nothing happens when you get offended. You don't wake up with leprosy the next day because you got offended or anything else like that.

People need to MTFU and STFU and get in with their lives and stop being such fannies.

^^ this has been a party political broadcast on behalf of the just got in from the pub pissed and started ranting on the internet party

SO if they accept land grabs, illegal settlement and Israel putting them on a diet - code for near starvation diet as Israel controls the flow of all goods in and out, economic embargo then they can have peace?

Why are they so unwilling to do this?

What laws and international norms are you using to justify this and ignoring UN resolutions?
Oh yes you blame the palestinians dont you 🙄
Its definitely their fault when Israel bombs a un school and kill civilians definitely I mean they make Israel do this dont they but nothing israel does makes them bomb them that is just terrorism

Bith sides are doing bad things FFS this is indisputable but you can only see one side

They get "our" support [ i have missed the appeals to authority nice to see a return] in much the same way Saudi gets "our" support or The govt sucks up the chineses. Its a sign of a morally bankrupt foreign policy, borne of expediency not principle rather than proof that they, or we, are right in what we/they do.

What has @edward said which has so upset you Junky ?

The Arab world is spectacularly wealthy, how come they do diddly squat to help the Palestinians financially ? How come they don't welcome them and offer citizenship ? The 20% of Israeli citizens who are Arabs don't call themselves Palestinians do they, why is that ?

What has @edward said which has so upset you Junky ?

The Arab world is spectacularly wealthy, how come they do diddly squat to help the Palestinians financially ?

RI YADH: The Kingdom has decided to increase the financial aid to Palestine by raising its monthly aid to the Palestinian Authority’s budget from $14 million to $20 million.
The substantial increase brings Saudi Arabia’s yearly aid for Palestine to $240 million, thus matching the United Kingdom’s annual budget aid for the Palestinian Authority.

The Popular Committee for Assisting Palestinian Mujahideen and The Support Committee for the Al-Quds Intifada and The Al-Aqsa Fund

Within days of Palestinians announcing they would join the International Criminal Court (ICC), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his country would stop transferring customs revenue to the Palestinian Authority. The punitive move was expected to lead to a crisis for the Palestinian leadership as government services would collapse across the West Bank without the funds. But the Palestinian Authority had an unexpected back-up plan. The Arab League has agreed to provide emergency funds to cover the VAT-taxes frozen by Israel. This Arab League safety net will help the Palestinians avoid the expected temporary bankruptcy and allow them to move forward with pressing for war crimes at the ICC. In fact, financial support from the Arab League was a key component, along with joining the ICC, of long-term strategy to pressure Israel into negotiations.

Joining the ICC was regarded as the Palestinians’s “nuclear option,” a last-ditch measure to pressure Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and recognize the establishment of a Palestinian state. Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon said this week the Palestinian application to join the ICC would be ratified on April 1, 2015. From that time on, the Palestinians would be eligible to pursue legal action against Israel.

I am not sure what you meant by "diddly squat" could you use a more precise term as clearly they do rather a lot

DId you mean they dont do enough? It would help a lot if you were a little more accurate in your claim/slur.

How come they don't welcome them and offer citizenship ?

They have a nation why would they do this- are you suggesting all palestinians should leave?
Imagine if i asked why the US dont give all the Israelis citizenship and why they dont all just move away . That would be racist now wouldn't it. Facepalm and oh the irony. Oh the irony.

The 20% of Israeli citizens who are Arabs don't call themselves Palestinians do they, why is that ?

According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the Arab population in 2013 was estimated at 1,658,000, representing 20.7% of the country's population.[2] The majority of these identify themselves as Arab or Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship

An IDI Guttman Study of 2008 shows that most Arab citiens of Israel identify as Arabs (45%). While 24% consider themselves Palestinian, 12% consider themselves Israelis, and 19% identify themselves according to religion

So the least popular choice for an arab in israel is Israeli. I am pretty confident that was not meant to be your point. WHat was your point meant to be ?

^^ this has been a party political broadcast on behalf of the just got in from the pub pissed and started ranting on the internet party

SO if they accept land grabs, illegal settlement and Israel putting them on a diet - code for near starvation diet as Israel controls the flow of all goods in and out, economic embargo then they can have peace?

"@outofbreath - if you are being asked 16 times to apologise on air and the shadow chancellor is telling you tooyou'd think theynare doing somfor a reason. He was asked to apologise for causing offence, he apologised to zcornyn but absolutely made a point of not apologising to the Jewish community."

Typically the "request for apology" is used as a tool to get someone to accept the straw man is true. I think this is one of those cases. If he says sorry, it will be interpreted by many as admitting his comment was racist, which it wasn't.

On J-Y...As much as the above post counts as anti-Semitic remarks according to the Jewish council's defination of what constitutes anti-Semitism,IE criticism of the [b]actions[/b] of the state of Israel. Hating the actions of the state of Israel only makes somebody a good egg as far as I am concerned. Attempting to turn this noble sentiment into racism and to try to shut the poster up by calling them a racist makes you a bit of a chugger. Carrying on digging is pretty funny though.

Pretty sure this (which played a big part in starting the whole furore) isn't antisemitic:

[img] [/img]

The Arab world is spectacularly wealthy, how come they do diddly squat to help the Palestinians financially ? How come they don't welcome them and offer citizenship ?

So when Naz Shah proposed relocating Israel to the US she was denounced as anti-Semitic, but when you propose relocating Palestine to Saudi you are just making a sensible suggestion.

#jambaplanet

I'm confused

Was there an agreement called Ha'avara between German Jews and the Third Reich

[url= http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_weber.html ]null
"Between 1933 and 1941, some 60,000 German Jews emigrated to Palestine through the Ha'avara and other German-Zionist arrangements, or about ten percent of Germany's 1933 Jewish population. (These German Jews made up about 15 percent of Palestine's 1939 Jewish population.) Some Ha'avara emigrants transferred considerable personal wealth from Germany to Palestine. As Jewish historian Edwin Black has noted: "Many of these people, especially in the late 1930s, were allowed to transfer actual replicas of their homes......"

Pretty sure this (which played a big part in starting the whole furore) isn't antisemitic:

Presumably if the ethnic cleaning plan isn't at all antisemitic but merely technocratic, then the better course of action would be to relocate the Palestinians to the US. There are fewer Palestinians in ex-Mandatory Palestine than Israelis, and more Arabic speakers in the US than Hebrew-speakers, so the deportees will feel right at home.

So Ken is right then?

Wikipedia on [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement ]Haavaara[/url]

It looks like Hitler supported it too, according to Wikipedia:

"Hitler criticized the agreement, but reversed his opinion and supported it in the period 1937-1939.[9]"

I can't see why the BBC can,t do a Wikipedia search to see if Kens statement was true or not.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/30/livingstone-muddies-history-to-support-hitler-and-zionism-claims

I can't see why the BBC can,t do a Wikipedia search to see if Kens statement was true or not.

Because it doesn't really matter if something is technically true in order for the use of the information to be inflammatory and racist

see Nick Griffin's rantings as an example

[url= http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/04/30/nobody-bothered-to-check-who-created-that-anti-semitic-image-naz-shah-retweeted-did-they/ ]Nobody bothered to check who created that “anti-Semitic” image Naz Shah retweeted, did they?[/url]

You know that image that got Naz Shah suspended from the Labour Party?

The really offensive, anti-Semitic image that proposes relocating the nation of Israel from the Middle East to the American Midwest?

This one:

[img] [/img]
/p>

It seems nobody bothered to check on the person who originally published it.

So let me put you out of your misery.

The map was posted in Norman Finkelstein Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict?, on Monday, August 4, 2014, on his blog.

Professor Finkelstein is described by that hideously inaccurate Wikipedia as “an American political scientist, activist, professor, and author. His primary fields of research are the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust, an interest motivated by the experiences of his parents who were Jewish Holocaust survivors.”

That’s right – it was posted by a Jewish gentleman.

Not only that; he’s the son of two Jewish people who survived the Shoah.

It puts a different complexion on this whole issue, doesn’t it?

He’s currently working on a book – his 11th – with Palestinian political analyst Mouin Rabbani, entitled How to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

Cant they just move the Palestinians to Iran, there is lots of space there too, and it would save the Iranians a fortune in those rockets they supply Hamas with?
What with the Israelis being moved to Utah we can then give the land to the Scientologists and get them out of our hair, I mean its just people.
Oh..:)

See JHJ, it's all part of the conspiracy...

I suppose the pro Hamas tweets she made were backed by the Jews as well?

I suppose it's also racist to star that Lehi proposed to fight alongside Natzi Germany, against the British?

Abbott on Marr this morning.

Apparently she was campaigning against anti semitism before it was fashionable.

#hipster

You couldn't make it up!

The original anti-Semitic idea was by the Jewish son of a survivor of the Holocaust.

i said much the same thing then as now tbh. all arseholes. nobody's obstructing ken's freedom of speech btw, just his membership of a political party.

(and let's be honest, he's not been suspended for antisemitism. he's been suspended for being an arsehole

By virtue of him being suspended then that is an obstruction of free speech. Besides, all the debate has been on antismetism really.

.

You couldn't make it up!
The original anti-Semitic idea was by the Jewish son of a survivor of the Holocaust.

Yeahbut. Finkelstein is a bit, ummm, controversial. He is on record as a supporter of Hamas for example and has been banned from entering Israel.

I can't see why the BBC can,t do a Wikipedia search to see if Kens statement was true or not.

Wiki is not sufficient as a source for broadcast media, it is often wrong which it is apparently in this case according Simon Schama, who is supposed to be quite good at History.

mefty - Member
"I can't see why the BBC can,t do a Wikipedia search to see if Kens statement was true or not."
Wiki is not sufficient as a source for broadcast media, it is often wrong which it is apparently in this case according Simon Schama, who is supposed to be quite good at History.

The BBC don't need Wiki - they manufacture most of their facts.

Is it true, or did you hear it on the BBC?

Abbott on Marr this morning.

Apparently she was campaigning against anti semitism before it was fashionable.

#hipster

Just how removed from reality must the leadership of the Labour Party be to think that putting Diane 'White people love to play divide and rule' Abbott up as a spokesperson to try and calm the waters in any form of race allegations was a good idea?

Seriously, someone has actually sat there and thought "I know, we'll send Diane in to defuse the situation"

Well if at first you dont succeed 😉

Did the party actually do this or is it just because she has such a media presence? Genuine question as she would not be my first choice.

Knowing the bbc currently, they had the choice of a few and thought 'oooh Diane Abbott - she'll put her foot in it - that'll be good telly'

bbc currently, they had the choice of a few and thought 'oooh Diane Abbott - she'll put her foot in it - that'll be good telly'

Which would be all the more reason for the well tuned press team of the leadership to stamp on it. She's not just front bench, but a shadow cabinet minister FFS, do you really think that the press team just leave her to pitch up at TV studios and say what she likes?

So presumably Finklestein was roundly denounced as anti Semitic?

The BBC with it's particularly mendacious notion of impartiality is running out of bullets ...

So presumably Finklestein was roundly denounced as anti Semitic?

Sounds like Aboott did what she is told - it's an smear campaign don't you know

Diane always does as she's told

but to cite him as an example of 'Jewish' attitudes is to ignore the fact that he is an uncompromising maverick in this debate.

The claim is that repating what the Jewish son of holocaust survivors posted was a sign of anti semitism.
He may well be a maverick but its gonna be damn hard to prove he is anti semitic

Do his views suddenly become anti semitic when a non jew repeats them?

"Diane 'White people love to play divide and rule' Abbott up as a spokesperson to try and calm the waters in any form of race allegations was a good idea?"

I found it quite funny until I wondered if JC and JMcD are so isolated they can't get anyone to speak for the party on this topic, which makes me feel a bit sorry for them. They ain't young and they stood for the leadership with the best of intentions.

"Do his views suddenly become anti semitic when a non jew repeats them?"

Nope, nor do they become non-racist just because a Jew posted them.

Personally, I don't think the image was racist, but the identity of the poster is irrelevant: Some people hate their own family, some people hate their own race. It's still hate, its still prejudice.

Would a bloke down the pub saying 'All the Blacks should be deported to Africa' make him a Rastafarian? It is all about context.
I think it is perfectly possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic or racist. But Livingstone citing Hitler as a way of denigrating Zionism is pretty offensive I'd have thought.

Which would be all the more reason for the well tuned press team of the leadership to stamp on it. She's not just front bench, but a shadow cabinet minister FFS, do you really think that the press team just leave her to pitch up at TV studios and say what she likes?

It puts a different complexion on this whole issue, doesn't it?

Sounds like Aboott did what she is told - it's an smear campaign don't you know

I think [url= https://colinrtalbot.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/the-lefts-problem-with-anti-semitism/ ]this [/url]is a good summary of the issues.

The idea of creating a Jewish state in Palestine – Zionism – was a minority one amongst Jews before WWII and the Holocaust. It was opposed by most of great powers, including Britain. It was also opposed by most left-wingers, but not all.

WWII and the Holocaust changed that forever. The need for a Jewish homeland was an overwhelmingly obvious consequence of the catastrophe that engulfed European Jews.

In the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the United Kingdom became the first world power to endorse the establishment in Palestine of a "national home for the Jewish people." The British government confirmed this commitment by accepting the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922 (along with their colonial control of the Pirate Coast, Southern Coast of Persia, Iraq and from 1922 a separate area called Transjordan, all of the Middle-Eastern territory except the French territory). The European powers mandated the creation of a Jewish homeland at the San Remo conference of 19–26 April 1920.[6] In 1948, the State of Israel was established.

There is a difference between a homeland and a state, Begin was regarded as a terrorist by the British government and certainly the Army serving in the area post WWII.

Possibly but its hard to see how they can have a homeland that is not a sate

The second point is true and it would be false to pretend it was some sort of smooth transition we always supported.

However the other author is being one sided as there was commitment prior to WW2 and the British were not "opposed" though they may have been resistance to certain outcomes and barrier to settlement. However I am not sure it's fair to say we were always against it and certainly not as un nuanced as that piece.

"However the other author is being one sided as there was commitment prior to WW2 and the British were not "opposed" though they may have been resistance to certain outcomes and barrier to settlement. However I am not sure it's fair to say we were always against it and certainly not as un nuanced as that piece."

It was written in a blog to sketch out the pre war status quo. In context it's fine - the world wasn't wildly in favour of a Jewish homeland, after the war it became the best of a bad lot of options. True enough for the purposes of the blog.

@mefty yes an interesting read.

When Israel was first established the Soviet Union believed it would key a key ally against US in the region, numerous Kibutz with strong left wing ideals where set up and left wing ideals in Israel was strong inckuding from many Eastern European Jews. However, the Israelis recognised that the US would be thier stronger ally and many European Jews where relocating there so links grew stronger. They also saw a post war Soviet Republic would be a place of freedom.

IMHO today many left wing supporters of the Palestinian cause are doing so as a proxy for their hatred of the US, as the piece says those organizations they support are not interested in a two state solution, nor of Jews and Arabs living together. Nor are those organizations seeking a modern, liberal society or indeed democratic society. That doesn't matter to them as long as they ' stick up two fingers' to the US and the Isrealis, ie Jews.

Obvious correction

They also saw a post war Soviet Republic would [b]not[/b] be a place of freedom.

Also, many on the left think there are votes to be won via their anti-Israel stance. Cynical politics.

today many left wing supporters of the Palestinian

I'm sure there are some who feel that way, but IMHO the vast majority just want to see a peaceful settlement and an end to Israeli abuses , without any sort of ulterior motive

@kimbers I hope you are right

From Sky News

[i]Meanwhile, Jewish donors are reported to have abandoned the party, including Sir Ronald Cohen, the social investment pioneer who donated more than £2.5m to Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

He told The Times: "There is no room for racism among the values of the Labour party. If the leadership does not stamp out racism now, racism will stamp out the Labour party."[/i]

I think Jerry Adams was jealous about all the publicity Ken's been getting

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/02/gerry-adams-defends-n-word-tweet-django-unchained ]N word[/url]

Gerry Adams is worried about being considered a bigot!? Reminds me of when he was distancing himself from terrorists after 9/11.

I think the left's position on Israeli isn't really complex, it was a supporter of Israeli, right up until the point it became a US puppet right wing state.

As Kimber points out, for a lot of folk it's not a Jew/Arab thing it's a Stop acting like a warmongering bully state to your immediate mostly defenceless neighbour thing...

Meanwhile on Planet Jamba

the left think there are votes to be won via their anti-Israel stance. Cynical politics.

Do you really believe this rubbish you keep typing?

"mostly defenceless"

Defenceless, but endlessly willing to attack.

Or defend, depending on your point of view.

the world wasn't wildly in favour of a Jewish homeland

I have no idea, short of revisionism. how one can argue that the Uk was against a Jewish homeland as it is just not true.

Of course the holocaust changed the landscape but the "true enough" means hopelessly one sided and misleading. I am not going to read the musings of someone who want to inaccurately describe the past as i assume they are just as inaccurate about the present.

IMHO today many left wing supporters of the Palestinian cause are doing so as a proxy for their hatred of the US,

Really ? i always thought unwavering support for israel was marked by a sign of islamophobia, You often find the most vocal Israel supporters are also the ones constantly reminding how much the world is under threat from radical islam which will blight europe.

There is almost no limit to the [s]stupid[/s]creative reasons you will give for dislike of israel ....its what she does dude- and banding around ever more ludicrous reasons is just another insight into your [anti left] bigotry/difficulty with facts and nothing else.

many on the left think there are votes to be won via their anti-Israel stance. Cynical politics.

You never did explain what the statement meant about arabs in Israel and their nationality - would you like to have a go now or are we just glossing over you being wrong again?

Both views have racists neither side is typified by it.

Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to avoid justifying their own views whilst engaging in ad hom attacks,

So if you dislike israel you are a racist who hates Us - what other reason could there be ?Its a pathetic[literal meaning] line of attack.

Defenceless, but endlessly willing to attack.

Perhaps they are listening to the Israeli critics of Holocaust victims who they say should have offered more resist to the Nazis.

nickc - Member
...As Kimber points out, for a lot of folk it's not a Jew/Arab thing it's a Stop acting like a warmongering bully state to your immediate mostly defenceless neighbour thing...

It's pretty straightforward. Let's Godwin this again.

If the Nazis had managed to invade and occupy Southern England and hold it, would we be anti-caucasian for opposing it and supporting the oppressed Northern English?

outofbreath - Member
"mostly defenceless"

Defenceless, but endlessly willing to attack.

"Or defend, depending on your point of view."

AFAICT there's no element of defence. They chuck missiles at Isreal to provoke military response so we all call Isreal the aggressor which furthers the aim of getting rid of Isreal.

What other purpose could the random missiles and border stabbings serve?

You should watch this:

what other purpose could the random missiles and border stabbings serve?

A large part is despair IMO. Of course if the US would support them with nice new precision weapons like they give the Israelis their fire could be a lot less random.

would we be anti-caucasian

what other purpose could the random missiles and border stabbings serve?

It becomes a chicken and egg situation what one side does "justifies" the other. However the simple fact is that what Israel does will lead to what the palestinians do. The peace has to start with them stopping being such ****s to the palestinians who need to immediately respond by ending , massively ineffectual, bombing and recognising a two state solution.

Its unlikely either side will be making these moves as they prefer to "defend" themselves by bombbing the others who are the baddies.

This is no road map to peace.

* all people have the right to self defence. If your neighbor stole your garden , then started stealing your electricity and your food eventually you're going to do something "bad" back to them.

"Its not "right""

I didn't say if I thought it was right or not, I just said why I thought they did it.

Also worth a watch:

if you steal the land from people and then steal some more land from the people

Worth remembering that much of the Land on which Israel was built was bought fair and square from the Palestinians