Israel Punished By The Us For Gaza Attacks By Getting More Ammo

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Makes you wonder how the statues survived for 1,000 years of Islamic rule, doesn't it?

A bit like those Christians now reportedly being turfed out of Mosul after hundreds of years.

The point I'm trying to make, albeit in rather a roundabout fashion, is that, IMO, attacks on Muslim countries by Western powers (or, in this case, the Soviet Union) have ultimately been responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in those countries. When people see little hope, they turn to religion. Hence the rise of the Taliban and the destruction of the statues in Afghanistan, and the rise of Hamas in Palestine. It seems to me that fundamentalism is generally a symptom of conflict rather than a cause.

Or fascism, or communism, or whatever fits the groove in a particular time and place.

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism was arguably given a helpful little nudge because the religious flavoured lunatics were preferentially given support by the West and its client states because they weren't potentially troublesome nationalists/secularists. Israel allegedly went down the same path in favouring Hamas over Fatah.

[t1234]

I don't think that the Jews resisted nazism militarily at all, unlike the palastinians, perhaps if they had a homeland? -perhaps that is an argument in the other direction?

Of course the Jews in World War 2 resisted when they knew what was going on and could. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

The Nazis like any oppressive government never came out and admitted what they were going to do. You can only imagine the courage needed to take up arms when your family are close by and subject to reprisals yet there is only suspiciion about what goes on in the camps not proof. (not trying to make any correlation here because I don't think there is)

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Whilst this may or may not be true, once again it digresses from the thread title and moves on to a different area of a complex debate. Today the state of Israel killed in excess of 50 people inside the Gaza Strip, is that either rational or proportionate, or is Israel just much better at killing people in an asymmetrical war?

According to the movie The Gatekeepers I've already mentioned on a couple of earlier threads, the half dozen still living former heads of Shin Bet reckon Israeli tactics are pretty good. It's the overall strategy they're pessimistic about.

What's the latest outbreak of futility likely to achieve? More replacement insurgents radicalised than have been killed and the destruction of some tunnels along with a few thousand easily fabricated rockets?

[snowflux]

I agree that clod hopping western interventionism has aided the rise of Islamic fundamentalism but I am not sure it has been the only factor. Saudia Arabia is at the very heart of Sunni extremism yet it has not been invaded by any western power despite its vast oil riches. Indeed, the kingdom of Saud gets as big a free pass from the US as Israel and just as many shiny weapons. It would also be noted that Islamic fundamentalism comes in many flavours not all of which agree.The Saudi regime and the Iranian Shia Islamic republic are in fact engaged in a violent geopolitical struggle for dominance in the Middle East that dwarfs the Israel-Palestinian dispute both in scale and ferocity. It is just that Arab killing Arab or Muslim butchering Muslim does not fit very comfortably into the narrative that many liberal left wingers want to construct about this part of the world. Moreover, fueling a lot of the extremism and conflict is protest against poverty and inequality. The first Islamic group that manages to merge Islam and Socialism into a viable combination could be onto a big winner. Little surprise that this is an outcome the US and the Saudi monarchy dreads. This is why the Saudis feel they have to control the way radical Sunni Islam develops. Their problem will occur when one of the groups they fund escapes their control.

Good post, but I think most "liberal left wingers" are perfectly aware of the strife between different Arab/Muslim factions. That doesn't in any way lessen the injustice perpetrated on the Palestinians by the Israelis though. You might as well tell the Americans that the 3,000 odd deaths in 9/11 are not worth bothering about given about 50 times that number died in Vietnam.

[1929crash]

Of course the Jews in World War 2 resisted when they knew what was going on and could. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

The Nazis like any oppressive government never came out and admitted what they were going to do. You can only imagine the courage needed to take up arms when your family are close by and subject to reprisals yet there is only suspiciion about what goes on in the camps not proof. (not trying to make any correlation here because I don't think there is)

I think you'll find that there was an astonishing amount of cooperation between Hitler and the Zionists.

If you don't believe me, take a look at this book, written by a pro-Zionist.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transfer-Agreement-Dramatic-Between-Palestine/dp/0914153137/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406945622&sr=1-1&keywords=the+transfer+agreement

[oracle]

The point is that Israel actively creates this sentiment, then uses it as a justification to slaughter thousands including innocents.

If Israel didn't keep taking Palistinian land, perhaps there wouldn't be quite such strong resentment, then perhaps people would be more willing to elect moderate government.

It would be hard to encourage the British not to vote for an anti-French party, if France kept on annexing parts of the southeast and building French-only settlements on it. If we had peace talks, then the French announced they were going to go ahead and build some more.. Would you try to argue that they were really trying to promote peace? Or would you a actually see them as the aggressor?

well they sort of did that bit back in 1066 didn't they?

pretty much ever since we've been ruled by french or germans

free albion!!!!!

[Saver]

Good post, but I think most "liberal left wingers" are perfectly aware of the strife between different Arab/Muslim factions. That doesn't in any way lessen the injustice perpetrated on the Palestinians by the Israelis though. You might as well tell the Americans that the 3,000 odd deaths in 9/11 are not worth bothering about given about 50 times that number died in Vietnam.

yes, but most people I know complaining about the israelis have no connection to either the palestinians or to the people being slaughtered in iraq or syria (so it makes sense americans will be outraged about 9/11, despite vietnam - but not so much when its people you have no connection with) - yet they were silent when Assad was barrel bombing civilian areas and when isis rounded up people for mass executions. So why are they suddenly outraged this sort of thing goes on once the israelis do it? Not saying its acceptable what israel is doing, but seems double standards that only they get criticised for attacking civilians.

[snowflux]

yes, but most people I know complaining about the israelis have no connection to either the palestinians or to the people being slaughtered in iraq or syria (so it makes sense americans will be outraged about 9/11, despite vietnam - but not so much when its people you have no connection with) - yet they were silent when Assad was barrel bombing civilian areas and when isis rounded up people for mass executions. So why are they suddenly outraged this sort of thing goes on once the israelis do it? Not saying its acceptable what israel is doing, but seems double standards that only they get criticised for attacking civilians.

It's not the protestors showing double standards, it's the UK, US and other Western governments. Assad and ISIS are, rightly, international pariahs and are subject to financial sanctions and arms embargoes for their brutality whereas, for some reason, Israel's cruelty goes completely unpunished and, indeed, is positively encouraged by continued arms deliveries. As regards lack of criticism of Assad and ISIS: Have you actually read a newspaper recently?

[R K]

Another attack on a UN school.

It appears Netanyahu is actively targetting the UN

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28628682

[stormymonday_2011]

It's not the protestors showing double standards, it's the UK, US and other Western governments. Assad and ISIS are, rightly, international pariahs and are subject to financial sanctions and arms embargoes for their brutality whereas, for some reason, Israel's cruelty goes completely unpunished and, indeed, is positively encouraged by continued arms deliveries. As regards lack of criticism of Assad and ISIS: Have you actually read a

Well ISIS for one don't have to worry as the Saudis will give them the money to buy all the weapons they want.

What is so hopeless is the lack of any real analysis of the problems of the Middle East or any viable humanitarian solutions from any quarter.

All we get from everybody is empty slogans and a desire that their opponent of what ever creed will f*ck off and die.

With regard to Israel the harsh truth is that both the Arabs and the Jews spent much of the 20th century waging guerilla war or using terrorist against the various imperial powers that tried to govern Palestine whether they were Ottoman Turks or British. Once they were removed the two groups immediately went to war with each other for dominance with no effort to compromise from the very start. The initial partition into two states decreed by the UN in 1946 led to immediate conflict and that state of affairs has gone on with brief interruptions ever since that date. Even the British as the mandate power knew that it would never work which is why the UK government never implemented the proposals for partition put forward by the Peel Commission in the 1930s and why they abstained from the vote on partition when the state of Israel was created.

Given that Jew and Arab were quite happy to kill Britons to remove us from the region during our brief 28 year rule of the area (1918-1946 ) it is a bit rich for either of them to suddenly start insisting that we should now take responsibility for the result. They could not wait to start killing each other so why should we worry that it has led to endless conflict and lots of civilian deaths. This is precisely what those terrible old British empire administrators predicted and verily it has come to pass.

BTW The Peel Commission findings are well worth reading to see what a hopeless situation the British face in Palestine and why they eventually walked away from it. The intransigence of the various sides with which they had to negotiate would have tried the patience of any power

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission

[snowflux]

Well ISIS for one don't have to worry as the Saudis will give them the money to buy all the weapons they want.

What is so hopeless is the lack of any real analysis of the problems of the Middle East or any viable humanitarian solutions from any quarter.

All we get from everybody is empty slogans and a desire that their opponent of what ever creed will f*ck off and die.

With regard to Israel the harsh truth is that both the Arabs and the Jews spent much of the 20th century waging guerilla war or using terrorist against the various imperial powers that tried to govern Palestine whether they were Ottoman Turks or British. Once they were removed the two groups immediately went to war with each other for dominance with no effort to compromise from the very start. The initial partition into two states decreed by the UN in 1946 led to immediate conflict and that state of affairs has gone on with brief interruptions ever since that date. Even the British as the mandate power knew that it would never work which is why the UK government never implemented the proposals for partition put forward by the Peel Commission in the 1930s and why they abstained from the vote on partition when the state of Israel was created.

Given that Jew and Arab were quite happy to kill Britons to remove us from the region during our brief 28 year rule of the area (1918-1946 ) it is a bit rich for either of them to suddenly start insisting that we should now take responsibility for the result. They could not wait to start killing each other so why should we worry that it has led to endless conflict and lots of civilian deaths. This is precisely what those terrible old British empire administrators predicted and verily it has come to pass.

BTW The Peel Commission findings are well worth reading to see what a hopeless situation the British face in Palestine and why they eventually walked away from it. The intransigence of the various sides with which they had to negotiate would have tried the patience of any power

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission

Yes, that sounds like a pretty accurate summary and, reading a bit more about it, I don't think the UK bears that much responsibility for the situation either. I actually think that the UK did its best to bring about a peaceful solution before ultimately walking rather than attempting to implement a UN partition plan which was obviously biased against the Arabs. However, that in no way justifies the UK continuing to supply arms to an Israeli regime that is so intent on maintaining its stranglehold on the Palestians through the use of force.

While we hear a great deal of uncompromising rhetoric for domestic consumption, I'm sure there are more moderate elements on both sides that would be open to some form of compromise if honest efforts were made, in particular, by the US. If a single-state solution is really not possible, then I'd imagine something like the following would be something to work towards:

1) Israel to return to 1967 borders.

2) Palestinians to recognise state of Israel, and Israel to recognise Palestinian state.

3) Palestinians to give up right to return in exchange for some form of compensation.

4) Full demilitarisation of both sides.

5) Border to be controlled by UN.

[oracle]

Another attack on a UN school.

It appears Netanyahu is actively targetting the UN

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28628682

go BiBi!

[oracle]

Yes, that sounds like a pretty accurate summary and, reading a bit more about it, I don't think the UK bears that much responsibility for the situation either. I actually think that the UK did its best to bring about a peaceful solution before ultimately walking rather than attempting to implement a UN partition plan which was obviously biased against the Arabs. However, that in no way justifies the UK continuing to supply arms to an Israeli regime that is so intent on maintaining its stranglehold on the Palestians through the use of force.

While we hear a great deal of uncompromising rhetoric for domestic consumption, I'm sure there are more moderate elements on both sides that would be open to some form of compromise if honest efforts were made, in particular, by the US. If a single-state solution is really not possible, then I'd imagine something like the following would be something to work towards:

1) Israel to return to 1967 borders.

2) Palestinians to recognise state of Israel, and Israel to recognise Palestinian state.

3) Palestinians to give up right to return in exchange for some form of compensation.

4) Full demilitarisation of both sides.

5) Border to be controlled by UN.

if you think that a solution with people that would like to instigate their own version of spanish inquisitions to convert or dispose of apostates and heretics is do-able.

personally I don't.

and I would not like britain even giving a moments consideration for doing any kind of deal with folks of this mindset.

if we are faced with an opponent who wholeheartedly believes that everybody who doesn't think like them should be bullied into their way of thinking or killed....then we have to kill them first.end of.

..and that, is not genocide,that is self defence...and we DO have an absolute right to that.

(it's only 500 years ago that this was happening in europe...I don't think we need a reminder)

[MrPin]

We should buy Israel and Palestine, loads of twisty balloons! Whoever makes the funniest dog shape, wins!

[stormymonday_2011]

With ref. to earlier posts on this matter:

Rachel Michelé Green ‏@RachelMicheleG 21h

Further images of thousands of Jews that came out in NY to condemn Israel and its hijacking of Judaism. #Gaza pic.twitter.com/99vYTcT30g

W

This is a point I alluded to in an earlier post about the uncomfortable relationship between Israel and elements of the wider Jewish diaspora.

For many Hassidic jews the very existence of a secular Zionist Israeli state is anathema.

Even some secular Jews are deeply ambivalent about what the state of Israel has done to Judaism, Jewish communities and Jewish identity across the globe. In seeking out an identity tied to a nation state Israel has tied Judaism to a lump of real estate rather than a vision of a heavenly kingdom on earth.

[1929crash]

if you think that a solution with people that would like to instigate their own version of spanish inquisitions to convert or dispose of apostates and heretics is do-able.

personally I don't.

and I would not like britain even giving a moments consideration for doing any kind of deal with folks of this mindset.

if we are faced with an opponent who wholeheartedly believes that everybody who doesn't think like them should be bullied into their way of thinking or killed....then we have to kill them first.end of.

..and that, is not genocide,that is self defence...and we DO have an absolute right to that.

(it's only 500 years ago that this was happening in europe...I don't think we need a reminder)

I bet hardly any of the hundreds of under-10s had this mindset - and when you speak of the Spanish Inquisition you must remember that millions of Muslims fell victim to it at the hands of God's team in Europe.

[LC1]

Collective punishment.

+1. Which raises the question of genocide.

[1929crash]

Bloody Mary brought it to Blighty....even more anger - she inherited a newly Protestant country.

EDIT: I don't know why, but for some reason we are not taught in our schools etc. that the Spanish Armada was led by a former King of England - Phillip II of Spain. When you trace any of these conflicts between 'nations' and 'countries'...these people are generally related in some way. Whether it be the Stuarts and Tudors, the Anglo Saxon King Harold and William the Conqueor, William of Orange and King James II, King George and Kaiser Wilhelm. But for some reason our history noticably builds up the jingoistic element rather than the familial one of our rulers and elite.

I would say that Bloody Mary brought a militant and violent version of the Counter Reformation to England, wales and ireland, but not the Inquisition.

In any event her reign was mercifully brief.

Phillip II never became King of England even though he married Mary..

[Saver]

It's not the protestors showing double standards, it's the UK, US and other Western governments. Assad and ISIS are, rightly, international pariahs and are subject to financial sanctions and arms embargoes for their brutality whereas, for some reason, Israel's cruelty goes completely unpunished and, indeed, is positively encouraged by continued arms deliveries. As regards lack of criticism of Assad and ISIS: Have you actually read a newspaper recently?

I did not mention what newspapers may or may not be reporting. I mentioned what people in the street are saying, which is a very different thing. I never saw any of these people who talk on facebook/twitter about israel say a thing about assad or isis.

[snowflux]

I did not mention what newspapers may or may not be reporting. I mentioned what people in the street are saying, which is a very different thing. I never saw any of these people who talk on facebook/twitter about israel say a thing about assad or isis.

The difference is that a sizeable number of people are defending Israel's brutality, whereas nobody is trying to defend Assad's or ISIS's brutality. It would be ludicrous to suggest that anyone who wants to criticise Israel's actions must first publicly denounce every other act of aggression that has occurred throughout human history.

[R K]

With ref. to earlier posts on this matter:

Rachel Michelé Green ‏@RachelMicheleG 21h

Further images of thousands of Jews that came out in NY to condemn Israel and its hijacking of Judaism. #Gaza pic.twitter.com/99vYTcT30g

Incredible pics. Are they from this current conflict?

Don't remember seeing anythnig like that on the BBC or SKY.

[LC1]

[LC1]

[R K]

Warsi resigns over Cameron's policy on Gaza.

Shame none of the middle aged male Tories have any conscience or cojones.

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 4m

Warsi criticises "our continued pressure on the Palestinian leadership not to turn to the ICC to seek justice".

Warsi's resignation letter (Spectator)

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/baroness-warsis-resignation-letter-the-key-points/

1. British policy in the Middle East generally is ‘morally indefensible’.

Warsi includes the current conflict in that, and warns that it could wreak long-term on Britain’s international reputation:

‘My view has been that our policy in relation to the Middle East Peace Process generally but more recently our approach and language during the current crisis in Gaza is morally indefensible, is not in Britain’s national interest and will have a long-term detrimental impact on our reputation internationally and domestically.’

She accuses the government of betraying its own values, saying ‘I believe our approach in relation to the current conflict is neither consistent with our values, specifically our commitment to the rule of law and our long history of support for international justice’.

[Executive Sadman]

Warsi resigns over Cameron's policy on Gaza.

Shame none of the middle aged male Tories have any conscience or cojones.

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 4m

Warsi criticises "our continued pressure on the Palestinian leadership not to turn to the ICC to seek justice".

Warsi's resignation letter (Spectator)

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/baroness-warsis-resignation-letter-the-key-points/

1. British policy in the Middle East generally is ‘morally indefensible’.

Warsi includes the current conflict in that, and warns that it could wreak long-term on Britain’s international reputation:

‘My view has been that our policy in relation to the Middle East Peace Process generally but more recently our approach and language during the current crisis in Gaza is morally indefensible, is not in Britain’s national interest and will have a long-term detrimental impact on our reputation internationally and domestically.’

She accuses the government of betraying its own values, saying ‘I believe our approach in relation to the current conflict is neither consistent with our values, specifically our commitment to the rule of law and our long history of support for international justice’.

I guess not having to worry about being re-elected allows you to do this.

Another reason why democracy is an unmitigated disaster and should be declared void as soon as possible.