Forum menu
Ther real fantasy here is that Israel will ever of its own volition agree to live in peace with the Palestinians.
In the 1990s, moderate Israelis realized that a peace settlement was the only long-term option if they didn't want to be in a permanent state of war. The only way to achieve that was through some sort of land-for-peace deal. That was sabotaged by extremists on both sides. The right-wing Israelis refused to accept the return of land on the grounds that Palestinians could never be trusted and giving up land would be a suicide pact for Israel. On the Palestinian side, extremists refused to accept Israel as a legitimate state and vowed to destroy it (and implicit in that is a promise of a second holocaust). Both sides brutalized civilians as provocations to derail the possibility of any peace deal.
I am very pessimistic that any peace deal will be possible in our lifetimes, the last thirty years have just cycles of violence with both side pointing to atrocities by the other. Any moderates on either side who argue for the compromises that would be needed for a peace deal are denounced (or murdered) by the extremists on their own side.
What is clear is that nothing is going to be possible while people think that indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians are acceptable. They achieve no military purpose, they aren't going to force Israel to the negotiating table, they just harden opinion among Israelis that the world doesn't care about the murder of Jews. So, supplying Palestinians with weapons is just a terrible idea. Not because Israel should be annexing Palestinian territory, but because Israelis will never trust any peace negotiations while attacks on civilians are ongoing.
Yup, it is widely seen that Israel is quite unique in the world as the only country with nuclear weapons, not as a deterrent against the possibility of a nuclear attack, but as viable weapons in a conventional war. A truly deplorable nuclear weapons doctrine so thank you for highlighting it thois.
Israel has them as a deterrent. They are a doomsday weapon, they ensure that any country that defeated Israel would also be destroyed. They aren't intended to be used as a battlefield weapon in the way that NATO and Warsaw pact tactical weapons were.
So it's better to let apartheid continue unabated and unchallenged?
So it’s better to let apartheid continue unabated and unchallenged?
This thread spilled over from the Ukraine thread. People asked why Palestine is different from Ukraine and why the West isn't supplying Palestinian fighters with weapons. The two situations are not the same. Ukraine has a very good chance of forcing Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territory if they are supplied with weapons. They are also the unambiguous victim in that war and are not deliberately targeting civilians as part of their strategy. The situation in Palestine is not as simple, the Palestinian territories aren't a formal state. There are multiple armed groups operating there and there is a strategy to deliberately target civilians.
Western democracies are not going to supply weapons to non-state groups that deliberately target Israeli civilians. That's pretty much it. That has to stop before anything else is going to happen.
Israel has them as a deterrent
Not as a deterrent to nuclear war - you have just admitted it yourself that Israel would use nuclear weapons in a conventional war.
And a deterrent is only effective if it is publicised - who has ever heard of a judge passing a sentence as a deterrent but insisting that it is not reported in the media?
Israel won't even admit to having nuclear weapons, never mind flaunting them.
What is clear is that nothing is going to be possible while people think that indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians are acceptable.
But at the same time it's fine for Israel to bomb apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, shoot children, nurses, journalists, drive bulldozers over peace activists and so on ad nauseam. Yes - it all makes sense now.
People asked why Palestine is different from Ukraine and why the West isn’t supplying Palestinian fighters with weapons
Not exactly. People (or me, anyway) asked why it is that Ukrainians are seen as the victims and given unlimited support, whereas the Palestinians are seen as the villains and their murderers excused. Your contributions to this thread have provided ample evidence of this phenomenon
And a deterrent is only effective if it is publicised
They aren't officially acknowledged. Everyone knows Israel has them. That suits everyone. If Israel officially acknowledged them, the other countries in the region couldn't pretend Israel didn't have them and they would be under intense political pressure to get them too. That would trigger a nuclear arms race which every country knows would be a catastrophe. Once a Muslim country got nukes, there would be constant pressure from hot-heads to use them to destroy Israel.
The other countries are clearly not thrilled about Israel having them but they understand that Israel will only use them in response to an existential threat to Israel. Much safer for everyone to go along with the pretense that they don't exist than to have a nuclear arms race.
whereas the Palestinians are seen as the villains and their murderers excused.
Ordinary Palestinians are seen as the victims caught in a terrible conflict. The Palestinians who launch rockets at Israeli cities aren't seen as the victims. They are committing war crimes. The West is not going to supply weapons to them because of that.
So thols, since you chose not to answer the question regarding apartheid (and misrepresented the nature of this thread), is it safe to say that you yourself support apartheid?
Ordinary Palestinians are seen as the victims caught in a terrible conflict.
Clearly not, or the e.g. Palestinian-American journalist recently murdered by the Israelis would have been avenged by the US.
They are committing war crimes. The West is not going to supply weapons to them because of it
But, as previously noted, it's OK to supply the bombs that Israel drops on children.
They aren’t officially acknowledged. Everyone knows Israel has them. That suits everyone.
What do you mean it suits everyone? It very obviously does not suit everyone.
And what sort of duplicitous regime has a secret nuclear weapons programme? One which treats international law and UN Resolutions with complete contempt. Dispite your absurd claim that Israel studiously commits itself to complying with international law.
Palestinians are probably a bit like the Native Americans in that regard…
Sad, but true.
Have been boycotting Isreal ever since I can remember. Have a look at the country of origin of your peppers, tomatoes and other veg. Surprising amount comes from there.
Israelis I've met have been mostly fascist Tuesdays.... Actually, I met one girl and she was ashamed about the conduct of her country. The rest seem to be indoctrinated.
As I'm now officially German that probably makes me a nazi.
Now get off my allotment.
why it is that Ukrainians are seen as the victims and given unlimited support
The support given to Ukraine has been very much “limited”. Substantial, but limited. Why have other countries limited what kind of help they will supply? Because Russia is a nuclear power.
But, as previously noted, it’s OK to supply the bombs that Israel drops on children.
Israel has lawyers who have looked carefully at what is legal and not legal (which is not the same as moral or wise). It is legal to target sites used to launch, store, or manufacture weapons. If one combatant side parks a missile launcher at a hospital, that missile launcher is a legitimate target. The responsibility for that lies with the side who put the missile launcher there. This means that the side who uses human shields are in the wrong, not the side that attacks a weapons facility.
I think Israel is being extremely stupid here. They have lawyers pointing to what is legal but ignoring the optics that hospitals and schools are being bombed. They think they are being clever but they are just being stupid.
However, that's why nobody will supply weapons to Palestinians. The Palestinian strategy is to deliberately target Israeli citizens. The Israeli strategy is to edge right up to the legal grey zone of what is allowed which gives them just enough plausible deniability that other countries will complain but won't cut ties. The Palestinian policy of indiscriminately attacking Israeli citizens is not helping Palestinians, it's making it much easier for Israel to deflect criticism.
For heavens sake stop talking rubbish. As I said before, all you’re doing is being a textbook example of a person excusing anything Israel does.
For heavens sake stop talking rubbish. As I said before, all you’re doing is being a textbook example of a person excusing anything Israel does.
Not at all. Israel's annexation of Palestinian territory is one of the major obstacles to any peace deal. Reversing that is the only way that any peace deal can work. Another major obstacle is Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. Israel is not going to accept any peace treaty with groups that advocate the destruction of Israel and attacks on Israeli civilians. Sending weapons to groups that attack Israeli civilians will just make things worse. That's why the West will not do that, it's a terrible idea, all it would do is get more Palestinians killed and turn every Israeli against any peace deal.
If you say things like this, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
DrJ
Free Member
Maybe if the US supplied Palestine with tanks and HIMARS the Palestinians would not be reduced to attacking civilians. Note also that the attacks on civilians produce far fewer casualties than “surgical” attacks on Palestinians.
Sending weapons to groups that attack Israeli civilians will just make things worse.
But it's OK to send weapons to groups that attack Palestinian civilians. Double standard noted.
Let's put it another way. Which specific Palestinian groups would you advise sending weapons to with confidence that they would only be used to attack military targets and wouldn't be passed on to Iran, Russia, or China to reverse engineer the technology? Western countries aren't going to just parachute crates of advanced weapons to random Palestinians, they need to know exactly who they are supplying. So, who do you recommend?
I'm not advising sending any weapons to anyone. I'm pointing out that what Palestinians can do is limited by their inaccurate weaponry on the battlefield, and by the refusal of Israel to make any meaningful attempt to end their policy of brutal subjugation. I'm also pointing out the double standard vis a vis Ukraine.
DrJ
Free Member
I’m not advising sending any weapons to anyone.
Guess your account was hacked then.
DrJ
Free Member
Maybe if the US supplied Palestine with tanks and HIMARS the Palestinians would not be reduced to attacking civilians. Note also that the attacks on civilians produce far fewer casualties than “surgical” attacks on Palestinians.
And the silence regarding apartheid continues...
So thols, since you chose not to answer the question regarding apartheid (and misrepresented the nature of this thread), is it safe to say that you yourself support apartheid?
So, we agree. Sending weapons to Palestinians would be spectacularly stupid. That's why the West doesn't do it.
Will you continue to avoid this question for another page?
So thols, since you chose not to answer the question regarding apartheid (and misrepresented the nature of this thread), is it safe to say that you yourself support apartheid?
So, we agree. Sending weapons to Palestinians would be spectacularly stupid. That’s why the West doesn’t do it.
So - now tell us what alternative support is given to the victims of Israeli aggression and why sending weapons to Israel is a great idea ....
No, apartheid is utterly horrendous.
One of the core problems in Israel and Palestine is that Israel was established as a homeland for Jews a few years after the holocaust. This makes a one-state solution impossible because right-wing Israelis will never accept Jews as a minority. Apart from the experience of the holocaust, the decades of attacks on Israeli civilians has persuaded right-wing Israelis that they will never be safe unless Israel is a Jewish state. That's a brute reality of Israeli politics.
That leaves a two-state solution as the only practical solution. Apartheid literally means the two sides are apart, but in has additional meaning that one side is dominant. That means that a realistic solution requires a viable Palestinian state. That's never going to be possible without a peace treaty that returns annexed lands to the Palestinians, recognizes Israel as a legitimate state, and recognizes that attacking Israeli citizens is not acceptable. Not attacking Israeli civilians should be an easy part of that deal.
That's a very one sided argument, given not only the constant harrassment by the Israeli military, but also, by Israeli Civilians themselves...
Charges Are Pressed Only in 4% of Settler Violence Cases
When cases pertain to violence against Palestinians, investigators often ignore evidence, fail to question witnesses, or simply close case
Feb 7, 2022
Everything was documented. Videos showed a group of settlers coming into a parking area in Hawara, near the settlement of Yitzhar, and throwing stones at 13 vehicles. The footage from the security cameras was very clear. It was no secret. Later that night, soldiers arrived to document the damage. A patrol officer joined them. The police in Ariel were provided with photographs, the names of witnessess, and told that there had been soldiers on the scene at the time of the crime- and that they had footage showing exactly what happened.
The incident took place on March 15, 2020, but nearly two years later, no one has been arrested or indicted. On the contrary, the file has been closed. A file containing just a letter of complaint, photographs of the incident, and a report from the patrol officer.
This incident is one of many. At Haaretz's request, police provided figures showing that in only 3.8 percent of criminal cases pertaining to violence against Palestinians were charges actually filed. In absolute numbers, 221 of 263 cases that were opened were closed without any action taken. Only ten of those cases resulted in an indictment. The rest are still under investigation.
So – now tell us what alternative support is given to the victims of Israeli aggression and why sending weapons to Israel is a great idea …
What Palestinians need is support in building a viable state. They need schools, hospitals, legal systems, water systems, etc. Sending money is easy, seeing that it's spent on useful things and not stolen or diverted to weapons is the difficult part.
Israel is a relatively liberal democracy in a region dominated by utterly terrible governments. Probably the most dangerous country in the region is Iran. Syria is a hellhole. Saudi Arabia is another potential Iran. All the countries in the region are vying for power, have terrible civil rights records, and potential nuclear weapons states. The gamble is that having the West supply countries with weapons is stabilizing. If the West didn't, they would turn to Russia or China and probably enter a nuclear arms race. There are no good options in the region, just bad ones and less bad ones.
That’s a very one sided argument, given not only the constant harrassment by the Israeli military, but also, by Israeli Civilians themselves…
Yep. Sending weapons to Palestinians won't help with that, it will just make it worse. If you want to help Palestinians, don't send them weapons. Ukraine is different. That's the point of the thread.
You've misunderstood the thread then...
You’ve misunderstood the thread then…
I don't think the situations in Ukraine and Palestine are the same. That's literally the thread title.
What do you think the thread is about?
You’ve misunderstood the thread then…
Indeed, although you stated it clearly enough:
At the end of the day, we have 2 similar stories of territorial infringement and slaughter by oppressors… so why the disparity?
As far as I can see it’s all the Palestinians’ fault.
As far as I can see it’s all the Palestinians’ fault.
I blame the British and the Americans. How did they ever come to think that gifting someone elses country to a religious group was ever going to end anything other than badly 😯
As far as I can see it’s all the Palestinians’ fault.
Nope, right wing Israelis did everything they could to derail peace negotiations, so did militant Palestinians. The fault is with extremists who refuse to accept any compromise with the other side. Sending weapons to Palestinians who attack Israeli civilians is not going to make things better for Palestinians, it will make it worse.
Sending weapons to Palestinians who attack Israeli civilians is not going to make things better for Palestinians, it will make it worse.
So you keep saying, but you haven't given us any idea what will actually make Palestinians' lives better, given that the Israelis are intent on expanding their occupation. At the moment the only choice they have is to die on their knees or die on their feet.
I blame the British and the Americans.
The British actually. The Americans joined in much later.
Problem is that pointing fingers at stuff that happened 100 years ago doesn't fix the problem now. Israel exists now and has nuclear weapons. The Palestinians need a viable state of their own that isn't at war with Israel. That's only going to happen by persuading moderate Israeli's to trust Palestinians and to return annexed land. Sending weapons to Palestinians who kill Israeli civilians would destroy any possibility of that. That's why it's a terrible idea, it just makes things worse for Palestinians.
you haven’t given us any idea what will actually make Palestinians’ lives better,
I did. Guess you didn't read it.
militant Palestinians.
Thats a bit like those old cowboy films.
'The Indians are attacking'
Completely missing the point that they are trying to defend their land against an invading group.
Sending weapons to Palestinians who kill Israeli civilians would destroy any possibility of that.
Better watch out - a straw man that big is a major fire risk just now.
I did.
Yeah but I meant - in real life, not unicorns like "persuading Israelis to all be beautiful and love their fellow man"
Someone give the poor lad a shake, dunno if it's the heat or what, but he's clearly malfunctioned and is loopier than looped tape of a hula hooping wing rider doing a loop the loop over a field of lupins on loop.
Now that we've established that flooding a situation with arms, be that Afghanistan in the 1980s, Syria in the 2010s, or indeed Israel in the 1940s->??? is bad, let's talk about sanctions...
Completely missing the point that they are trying to defend their land against an invading group.
This is the key thing with war crimes. It's what you do, not what side you are on. I think Ukrainians are on the side of good, but if they torture and kill prisoners, that's a war crime.
If Palestinians lob rockets at Israeli cities, it's criminal. Doesn't matter whether you support the Palestinian cause or not, indiscriminate attacks on civilians are terrorism/war crimes. Sending weapons to Palestinian groups who attack Israeli civilians is an absolute non-starter for Western countries, so any weapon shipments would have to be to groups who renounce attacks on civilians.
So, which Palestinian groups should be sent weapons? Which weapons should they be sent?
Clearly the best weapons the Palestinians could be sent is water pistols, to repel the onslaught of Israeli Bulldozers... better still, they could help distract their children from the plight of not only being regularly woken up by airstrikes and soldiers knocking doors, but terrorist acts by colonialist settlers.
Sanctions against Israel would of course never work, because they're a nuclear power and would gladly bomb their would be customers to re-establish good business relations.
Sanctions against Israel would of course never work, because they’re a nuclear power and would gladly bomb their would be customers to re-establish good business relations.
No, because their customers want to buy whatever Israel exports. For example, Israel and Turkey have a huge amount of military technology cooperation. It's no problem to persuade Western liberals to boycott SodaStream, but you aren't going to persuade Turkey or other countries to cancel defense contracts or boycott Israeli tech firms. Keep in mind, Turkey is a Muslim country. If you can't get Muslim countries on board, you have no chance with Taiwan, South Korea, etc. when they want something that Israel has.
Say for example the media did stir up sufficient sentiment that it became politically expedient for Western Governments to sanction Israel due to it's apartheid policies...
Couldn't they just outsource via a 3rd party intermediary like Russia does with oil exports through that other darling of the UK and US, Saudi Arabia?
Then at least there would be some semblence of parity, rather than clear support for apartheid...
This is the key thing with war crimes. It’s what you do
I agree, the Palestinian freedom fighters launch rockets from built up urban areas, then disappear.
The Israelis then fire rockets into the area the rockets came from, but knowing that the Palestinian fighters have left.
So the only thing the Israelis are hitting are peoples homes.
So war crimes are being committed by both sides, only its the Palestinians who are the only ones blamed and criticized.
This doesnt look like a military target, and mirrors that the Russians are doing to Ukraine.
