• This topic has 864 replies, 97 voices, and was last updated 4 days ago by DrJ.
Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 865 total)
  • Gaza
  • 12
    Mark
    Full Member

    Every few pages I’m going to post to remind any new readers/posters to check my OP before you post anything.

    Just a polite reminder is all.

    This is not a response to any particular reply.

    4

    Yet without Israel there would be no oppression of Palestine, therefore there would be no Hamas. It’s a mess we’ve created ourselves.

    All fair points, but exactly how does this oft repeated mantra actually contribute to a solution? What value does it bring to the table?

    The perspective of history is always 20/20 and too often used as a cudgel to stifle any meaningful work to a resolution and as a means to justify actions in the present.

    However tenuous and fragile that argument may be.

    alpin
    Free Member

    @TheFlyingOx

    bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68650815.amp

    theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/11/new-jersey-israel-palestine-protest-real-estate

    Israeli real estate events selling stolen Palestinian land met with protests and disruption 

    1
    somafunk
    Full Member

    cheers mark, noted.

    3
    thols2
    Free Member

    The sooner Palestine is recognised as a nation state then Israel WILL have to stop occupation and come to the negation table.

    I don’t know how old you are, but this is known as the “Two State Solution”. Bill Clinton bet his legacy on negotiating a deal like this, but it collapsed because Israeli right-wingers and Palestinian right-wingers both want a one-state solution (i.e. where their side dominates and excludes the other side.).Hamas are extremist one-staters – their aim isn’t to establish a Palestinian state the coexists with Israel, it’s to erase Israel from the map and replace it with an Islamist state. (That’s what the slogan, “From the river to the sea” is referring to, a single Islamist state from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.)

    Hamas do not accept a two-state solution and their aim isn’t to negotiate with Israel, it’s to destroy Israel. That’s why Israel have zero interest in negotiating with Hamas. Hamas are one-staters and one-staters have no interest in talking to two-staters.

    nickc
    Full Member

    @somafunk, went to read your article and your links bust.

    9

    I view this through a very simple lens. Israel irrespective of history had a right and responsibility to respond to the attacks across its borders and of it’s citizens.

    However as a democratic nation, with clear obligations under national and international law their response has stretched beyond what is deemed appropriate, proportionate and lawful.

    Sadly Hamas are under no such obligations, they are not signatories to international treaties, they don’t have the same internal governance and therefore the obligations in terms of waging armed conflict are set by themselves with no moral framework or care to wider international law.

    This ain’t me giving approval to either, just a very simple lens from a soldiers perspective. It is in esscene what fighting an irregular force on ‘equal’ terms looks like when one is organisationally and technologically superior.

    It’s a living example of why you must not do it.

    ton
    Full Member

    should Britain and the rest of the UN get their act together, and put a very strong peace keeping force in place in the whole of Israel and Palestine?

    after WW2 when the Jewish people were give Palestine, it seem they were then given  free reign to settle where they wanted regardless of bounderies.  history says they took 60% of the land designated for the Arab states.

    we, Britain, USA and UN allowed this.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    I don’t know how old you are,

    You know fine well how old I am, and I am well aware of the two state solution.

    See below for definition of statehood

    Is Palestine considered a state.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    Adam Tooze substack : Germany and Israel relationship explained

    That should be it…oops.

    edit : just checked and it works.

    1

    should Britain and the rest of the UN get their act together, and put a very strong peace keeping force in place in the whole of Israel and Palestine?

    The very real danger with the UK is that any hostility towards UK armed forces and any response irrespective of proportionality would probably cause more issues. A UN force made up of troops from a nation that hasn’t perpetuated or had a hand in this long brewed conflict might be better for all parties.

    Edit: Whoever that is would need a competent, flexible force btw. The situation is too delicate for a a single hammer or a tickle feather, it needs a force and leadership that can flex with the mission to maintain peace effectively. Utilising a braid range of approaches.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    But who would be prepared to send troops in? It’s not a realistic option.

    thols2
    Free Member

    should Britain and the rest of the UN get their act together, and put a very strong peace keeping force in place in the whole of Israel and Palestine?

    Israel has nuclear weapons. Where else do you propose to send this peacekeeping force? The DMZ in Korea? Crimea?

    2
    ton
    Full Member

    so the answer is what ??  just let Israel carry on until all the Palestinian people and homes are gone ?

    kind of like what someone wanted to do to the Jewish people in the past ??

    thols2
    Free Member

    You know fine well how old I am

    I really don’t know how old you are. How would I?

    1
    TheFlyingOx
    Full Member

    @somafunk

    The BBC link contains the rambling wishes of a hard-right Israeli grandmother, not evidence of land in Gaza being sold to Israeli settlers. Indeed it specifically states the Israeli government has no policy of settling Gaza.

    The Guardian link discusses what I already mentioned about illegal settlements in the West Bank and the word “Gaza” only appears in passing in the first sentence.

    I’ve no desire to defend Israel’s illegal settlements, but I also think if we’re going to have an adult discussion about the situation then we should be absolutely clear on what is and what isn’t true.

    1

    But who would be prepared to send troops in? It’s not a realistic option.

    A slightly childish, tongue in cheek response; SA could put their money where their mouth is…

    dyna-ti
    Full Member

    Genocide has a legal definition, part of which is intent. Proving genocide is difficult (especially given that Israel has nuclear weapons and could exterminate every Palestinian within minutes if that really was their intent.)

    Well the nazis didnt have any nuclear weapons, and their intent was eradication the old fashioned way with bombs, guns and knives.

    If Israel was to launch a nuclear strike in Gaza, killing many of the inhabitants, the blast if only one wouldn’t kill everyone, but as a consequence would contaminate parts of Israel, but more importantly other neighboring states, and of course the condemnation of the entire planet, including just about everyone sitting on the fence, so some sort of ‘nuclear option’ is a fantasy.

    A bit like the Americans ‘No option is off the table’ or the Russian media claiming some sort of nuclear option in Ukraine. Bluff and bluster. The type of thing you hear from the majority of the readership of the Jerusalem Post(Which is a bit of a mix between, the daily mail, fox news and combat18)

    End goal is however the removal of the Palestinian people. 20 years from now the entire region will say Israel on the map, and any Palestinians left will be there in a kind of bonded labour type scenario.

    This prediction isn’t mine but has been discussed in other circles.

    6
    thols2
    Free Member

    so the answer is what ??

    A two-state solution is the only realistic option that I can see. That would require both Israel and Palestine to recognize each other as legitimate states and to coexist in peace. Right-wingers on both sides reject that, so it would require more moderate leaders to negotiate a deal. Israel would basically have to retreat to the 1967 borders and Palestinians would have to stop attacking Israeli civilian targets. Both sides are currently led by right-wingers who reject a two-state solution so the answer is to build support moderates on both sides who are interested in negotiating. I’m not holding my breath.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    @TheFlyingOx

    I think you misdirected that link at myself.

    1
    somafunk
    Full Member

     Right-wingers on both sides reject that, so it would require more moderate leaders to negotiate a deal.

    Yep, the right wing in Israel opposed the establishment of a two state solution

    The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth prime minister of Israel, took place on 4 November 1995 (12 Marcheshvan 5756 on the Hebrew calendar) at 21:30, at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords at the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv. The assailant was Yigal Amir, an Israeli law student and ultranationalist who radically opposed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords.

    The assassination of Yitzak Rabin by an Israeli ultranationalist

    1
    TheFlyingOx
    Full Member

    @somafunk apologies, you’re right, it’s was meant for @alpin

    thols2
    Free Member

    Well the nazis didnt have any nuclear weapons, and their intent was eradication the old fashioned way with bombs, guns and knives.

    The intent is the crucial part of the legal definition, as I understand it. The Nazis were quite meticulous in their record keeping, apparently, so they basically recorded their genocide attempt and handed it over to the prosecution. Without recorded statements of intent, proving genocide in court would be difficult. Violation of human rights is a much easier charge to prosecute because it doesn’t require proof of intent.

    1
    thols2
    Free Member

    Yep, the right wing in Israel opposed the establishment of a two state solution

    The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth prime minister of Israel, took place on 4 November 1995 (12 Marcheshvan 5756 on the Hebrew calendar) at 21:30, at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords at the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv.

    Exactly. And Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian military officers because he negotiated a peace treaty with Israel. Extremists oppose peace treaties so a peace treaty is only possible when both sides agree to moderate and accept that the other sides has legitimate claims.

    5
    argee
    Full Member

    I ‘think’ that Hamas (on the 7th October) had simply had enough of the Israeli repression of them, of Muslims and of the people and state of Palestine.

    The attack they launched was a desparate attempt to get the world, and the Israeli population, to realise what was happening and to intervene – in some way. They probably didn’t expect such a massive response but they obviously expected some sort of retaliation hence the hostages.

    The October attack was the equivaent of squeezing a big zit or boil – it hurts like hell but you hope it leads to healing of some sort.

    Couldn’t disagree more, Hamas carried out that attack knowing full well how badly Israel would react to it, especially with a right wing government led by Netanyahu, everything that has happened since led from Hamas carrying out that atrocity and knowing normal Palestinians would be the ones who were punished for it.

    It also completely halted any progress the left had in trying to win against Netanyahu, he basically turned into a wartime leader overnight.

    6
    vlad_the_invader
    Full Member

    @Mark

    Thanks for permitting this discussion. For my own mental health, I’ve been avoiding most news sources about this conflict (and the Ukraine conflict) and this thread has been a useful source of context and background to me.

    And thanks to the contributors here.

    2
    alpin
    Free Member

    Genocide has a legal definition, part of which is intent. Proving genocide is difficult (especially given that Israel has nuclear weapons and could exterminate every Palestinian within minutes if that really was their intent.)

    Given the UN is saying they’re committing genocide means that there’s probably a good case that they’re committing genocide.

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    he basically turned into a wartime leader overnight.

    That was Netanyahu’s intention of not believing his intelligence reports that something was coming and also the niggling micro-provocations and  tacit encouragement of Hamas over the years. Without Hamas the current government of Israel would have collapsed in an untidy heap some years ago.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    It also completely halted any progress the left had in trying to win against Netanyahu, he basically turned into a wartime leader overnight.

    Netanyahu has been a warmongering despot with criminal intentions for years, the Hamas attack merely gave him the unequivocal backing from his cabinet of right wingers to carry out his vision for a greater Israel.

    This is a good read – biography of the rise of Netanyahu by Anshel Pfeffer of Haaretz

    It’s not a heavy read but it is very detailed and even handed in his interpretation of what makes Bibi tick.

    Yeah, I have a fair number of books relating to the Middle East

    3
    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    It also completely halted any progress the left had in trying to win against Netanyahu, he basically turned into a wartime leader overnight.

    Netanyahu and his increasingly right wing coalition were really struggling last year prior to the attacks – he was trying to force through legislation to reduce judicial oversight, leading to wide spread protests, as well as facing some investigations into his conduct iirc.

    There seemed to be a growing consensus that he and his government had to go, and were likely to be replaced by a more moderate coalition, which may then have weakened Hamas’ own position possibly?

    While the damage inflicted on Israeli and Palestinian civilians has been horrific, the October attack and it’s awful/illegal consequences seem to have strengthened Netanyahu and Hamas’ hand in the short/medium term.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    This is a good discussion with Professor Norman Finkelstein, On the Israeli/Gaza conflict having made it his lifes work with his original doctorate on Zionism in the early 1980’s, its a hard read (as in intellectually way above my head – available on his website) but perhaps worth a go at.

    His book The Holocaust Industry is a troubling read but more accessible

    7
    politecameraaction
    Free Member

    “Its because Israel is a ‘Western friendly’ foothold in the Middle East…”

    This is wrong. If the objective was to further Western influence in the Middle East, then the simplest thing would have been to abandon Israel entirely and unreservedly snuggle up to the oil rich and/or Western-oriented regimes in Kuwait, Saudi, Jordan, Iraq etc. Israel was the number irritant in all those relationships up to the 1980s.

    It is wrong that the UK gave Palestine to the Jews after WW1. The UK made vague and probably contradictory statements about what should happen in Mandatory Palestine (Sykes-Picot correspondence vs Balfour Declaration). And ultimately the Brits didn’t really give anything to anyone: the simply abandoned the place and buggered off home after WW2.

    It is also wrong that Israel would not exist without the US, or that Israel is a mere puppet of the US. In 1947, 1967, and 1973, Israel struggled and won with little support from the US.

    Israel does not worry too much about “alienating Western opinion” for one simple reason: they have learned that they cannot rely on anyone except themselves. These “Western” powers are the same ones who time after time committed genocide against the Jews or stood by as it happened, and stopped Jews escaping to Palestine or friendlier countries. Israelis are surrounded by hostile territories inhabited by far larger populations on all sides. Israel’s gains have been won and protected by a mass participation military. They are not going to listen to lectures from people overseas. It’s ironic that Irish Republicans are so allied to the Palestinian cause when the Israeli national motto could easily be “sinn fein” – “we ourselves”.

    They are not going to listen to lectures from people overseas. Ask the Palestinians today what being on the right side of global public opinion gets you: slaughtered while the South Shropshire Co-Operative Party passes indignant resolutions.

    What Israel is doing is both genocidal (an attempt to destroy life and settlement in Gaza) and suicidal (martyrdom creates generations of martyrs who can never be satiated). Israel and Israelis were complacent and squandered whatever hope the Oslo Accords might have had by not realising their long term interests were inextricably bound to the success of the PNA…

    …but so were the Palestinians. Since 1947 when the middle classes fled to Beirut and Cairo and Amman, there has been a total failure of the Palestinian political classes to create a viable polity and push back against cronyism, clan government and rejectionism of a 2 state solution, all of which doomed hopes of statehood. Kosovo, South Africa, the Baltic Countries: they all formed liberation movements while under occupation, and formed post-liberation states even as oppressors interfered.

    I have absolutely no idea how there can ever be peace now.

    1
    somafunk
    Full Member

    Hard to take issue with the gist of that ^

    3
    politecameraaction
    Free Member

    “A slightly childish, tongue in cheek response; SA could put their money where their mouth is…”

    South African National Defence Force is already a bit busy at the moment leading the peacekeeping force in Democratic Republic of Congo – in the middle of a war that’s killed 6 million people and yet rarely gets discussed in Europe.

    Europe and “the West” were also too cowardly to push Israel through the international legal order they so pompously drone on about – leaving it up to an African country to litigate.

    I think South Africa’s pitched in quite enough for the moment, all things considered.

    https://theconversation.com/south-africa-to-lead-new-military-force-in-the-drc-an-expert-on-what-its-up-against-219264

    https://southafrica.un.org/en/210481-united-nations-thanks-south-africa-its-contribution-peacekeeping

    1

    Hence why it’s childish. I’m aware, and much like many ongoing conflicts and insurgencies in Africa none make the news much until it impacts western interests.

    But my point about the UK and a few other western nations stands, if by an extreme stretch of the imagination some form of stabilisation force was sent to the region it would highly likely be a **** disaster if certain nations formed part of that force.

    It’s got to the point where a few organised African and Asian nations forces are doing the heavy lifting with peacekeeping due to the west being quite compromised due to historical ****.

    roger_mellie
    Full Member

    Edit: forget it.

    pondo
    Full Member

    “All fair points, but exactly how does this oft repeated mantra actually contribute to a solution? What value does it bring to the table?

    The perspective of history is always 20/20 and too often used as a cudgel to stifle any meaningful work to a resolution and as a means to justify actions in the present.

    However tenuous and fragile that argument may be.”

    I mention it not to justify the actions of Hamas, but to understand them and illuminate what IMO is the way forward – if you don’t understand what drives people to the horrific depths of 7/10, the only solution is to wipe them out, and I don’t believe Israel can ever war its way to peace. The only solution is compromise, and that takes both sides.

    2
    timidwheeler
    Free Member

    It is wrong that the UK gave Palestine to the Jews after WW1. The UK made vague and probably contradictory statements about what should happen in Mandatory Palestine (Sykes-Picot correspondence vs Balfour Declaration). And ultimately the Brits didn’t really give anything to anyone: the simply abandoned the place and buggered off home after WW2.

    To be fair.  The British (and others) were being targeted by Zionist terrorists at the time.  The King David hotel massacre being the most well known example.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing#:~:text=Ninety%2Done%20people%20were%20killed,policemen%3B%20and%205%20were%20bystanders.

    Post WW2 the British public simply didn’t have the stomach to cope with the deaths of even more of their relatives and just wanted them home.  It was, in hindsight, a poor decision but very understandable after the slaughter of WW2.

    3
    piemonster
    Full Member

    This is a good discussion

    Currently this thread itself (and not just what you linked) is a good discussion, whatever the decisions made by the moderation team are, it is so far reading like a good set of decisions overall.

    7
    blokeuptheroad
    Full Member

    Reading this thread with interest. Without restating some points already made, I’ve nothing useful to add for the time being.

    I am however surprised, in a good way, that discourse has remained largely courteous and that the thread has remained open.

    The forum desperately needed this pressure valve and kudos to Mark for taking the risk of providing one. And to you lot for playing ball.

    Carry on….

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 865 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.