International News Israeli is a racist state operating ethnic cleansing

boogaloo said:
Seems to me there is fault on both sides. To be fair, the Palestinians did democratically elect the Hamas political party, who several nations including the US and us regard as a terrorist organisation, and amongst their policies one of them is the destruction of Israel. Whatever side of the argument you are, that policy is never going to end well for the people you represent.

The Israelis on the other hand have elected a firebrand in Benjamin Netanyahu, who seems hell bent on fighting fire with fire. He seems to believe that what some Palestinians regard as 'Muslim land' is actually 'Jewish land', and it is perfectly acceptable just to kick people Palestinians out of their homes that they have lived in for many years because it is 'Jewish land'. That too is never going to end well.

I just wish they would stop delving into the history books trying to argue who's land it is, and just try and find a way to co-exist peacefully together. It would be nice if we could replace Hamah with Yasser Arafat and Netanyahu with Yitzhak Rabin, as they seemed to be making some sort of progress - but they're both dead.
Click to expand...

Spot on that.
 
dannyc said:
well why dont you thats the point you care about one cause but ignore the rest total hypocrite i prefer to ignore basicly all problems simply because we cant deal wuth them all at once .
Click to expand...
That gave me the biggest smile I’ve had all day - thanks Danny! Sounds to me like you have a ready made manifesto for a new political party.
 
bazzer9461 said:
What Israel is doing is bad goes without saying, but ffs why protest in our country
Click to expand...

Because people care about what goes on in other parts of the world. For many reasons.

Because they feel that they may be able to influence the UK Government.
 
Junior_1 said:
Wouldn’t go as far as to say that’s protesting...
Click to expand...
Well it was some sort of protest and take it elsewhere, it was bad enough with bloody Corbyn coming to Oxford on Sunday to protest with hardly rant b****r wearing a mask including that idiot.
 
m said:
Because people care about what goes on in other parts of the world. For many reasons.

Because they feel that they may be able to influence the UK Government.
Click to expand...
Influence into doing what precisely?
 
bazzer9461 said:
What Israel is doing is bad goes without saying, but ffs why protest in our country
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in my earlier post about the Bowen documentary, we share some responsibility because of decisions made when we stepped out of the area in the first half of the 20th century. The conflict right now is barely different from the conflict in the 1930s and most decades in between. “Britain left Palestine with a legal system, red pillar boxes, chaos and war”.
 
chuckbert said:
As I mentioned in my earlier post about the Bowen documentary, we share some responsibility because of decisions made when we stepped out of the area in the first half of the 20th century. The conflict right now is barely different from the conflict in the 1930s and most decades in between. “Britain left Palestine with a legal system, red pillar boxes, chaos and war”.
Click to expand...
It's certainly worth anyone's while researching the history of Palestine / Israel before making any emotional or 'gut feel' comments. When in command of the historical facts, by all means draw your own conclusions, but to detest Hamas because they fire indiscriminate rockets into Israel or to detest the Israelis because they shell heavily populated Gaza is just lazy.
 
Last edited:
chuckbert said:
As I mentioned in my earlier post about the Bowen documentary, we share some responsibility because of decisions made when we stepped out of the area in the first half of the 20th century. The conflict right now is barely different from the conflict in the 1930s and most decades in between. “Britain left Palestine with a legal system, red pillar boxes, chaos and war”.
Click to expand...
Yes we did but Israel still can’t live with peace and I’m not saying they shouldn’t be able to defend themselves against attack but Israel aren’t entirely blameless in incidents that have happened involving them since there creation, also they don’t care which side there on as long as it benefits them, they aren’t bothered with other countries whether they’re friend or foe.
 
bazzer9461 said:
Influence into doing what precisely?
Click to expand...

Not for me to say Baz, I'm not protesting after all.

I guess that the UK alone could have little influence, but as part of NATO? Not that I think we will get involved.
 
Pete Burrett said:
It's certainly worth anyone's while researching the history of Palestine / Israel before making any emotional or 'gut feel' comments. When in command of the historical facts, by all means draw your own conclusions, but to detest Hamas because they fire indiscriminate rockets into Israel or to detest the Israelis because they shell heavily populated Gaza is just lazy.

Anyone see any similarities between this conflict and the origins of the recent troubles in Northern Ireland? The ruling British corrected the Catholic / Protestant imbalance there by importing protestant 'plantation Scots'. That's a basic and probably lazy summation, but echoes the mass migration into what is now Israel.
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget that Israel became a state in 1947 because of the United Nations sanctioning it then in 1948 Israel went to war with Palestine and Britain supported this.so Israel aren’t much better than Palestinians. It would also be interesting to see what would happen if this latest conflict escalated and whether any other Arab nations would want to get involved.
One more small point the yanks were very keen to support and ratify anything Israel wanted back in 1948
 
bazzer9461 said:
Let’s not forget that Israel became a state in 1947 because of the United Nations sanctioning it then in 1948 Israel went to war with Palestine and Britain supported this.so Israel aren’t much better than Palestinians. It would also be interesting to see what would happen if this latest conflict escalated and whether any other Arab nations would want to get involved.
One more small point the yanks were very keen to support and ratify anything Israel wanted back in 1948
Click to expand...
Biden blocked a UN resolution for a ceasefire ... well he would as he's supplying Isreal

www.independent.co.uk

Democrats criticise Biden for approving $735m sale of precision-guided missiles to Israel

The Biden administration has approved the sale of $735m of precision-guided weapons to Israel, raising the ire of some Democrats who question support for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Sarge said:
Biden blocked a UN resolution for a ceasefire ... well he would as he's supplying Isreal

www.independent.co.uk

Democrats criticise Biden for approving $735m sale of precision-guided missiles to Israel

The Biden administration has approved the sale of $735m of precision-guided weapons to Israel, raising the ire of some Democrats who question support for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
And it was Harry Truenan that gave Israel whatever they wanted, and then you get that muppet Trump to move the American embassy to Jerusalem knows the Palestinians wouldn’t like that
 
bazzer9461 said:
Yes we did but Israel still can’t live with peace and I’m not saying they shouldn’t be able to defend themselves against attack but Israel aren’t entirely blameless in incidents that have happened involving them since there creation, also they don’t care which side there on as long as it benefits them, they aren’t bothered with other countries whether they’re friend or foe.
Click to expand...
Hi Baz, Not sure what you're arguing against here. I was just commenting why they (zionists or palestinians, and their supporters) might protest in Britain. If you watch the documentary I linked (highly recommended) you get some idea of the complexity of culpability on all sides, all in different ways and with different justifications. I tend to have sympathy for the palestinians for the situation in which they have been placed by outside forces. At least as much of that sympathy derives from the actions of surrounding arab nations as it does from the zionists. I've also got sympathy for the jewish communities who had been living there for ages before the zionist cause became more urgent in the 1930s. And then you've got the floods of holocaust survivors etc who were treated awfully (post-holocaust by us), and then injected into the middle of this.

With a German mum and a wife who's jewish grandparents escaped Krakow in the late 30s some of these issues resonate quite strongly.

I'm turning into a soft old pacifist though, especially when my son said "well they should just stop bombing each other". Quite.
 
boogaloo said:
Seems to me there is fault on both sides. To be fair, the Palestinians did democratically elect the Hamas political party, who several nations including the US and us regard as a terrorist organisation, and amongst their policies one of them is the destruction of Israel. Whatever side of the argument you are, that policy is never going to end well for the people you represent.

The Israelis on the other hand have elected a firebrand in Benjamin Netanyahu, who seems hell bent on fighting fire with fire. He seems to believe that what some Palestinians regard as 'Muslim land' is actually 'Jewish land', and it is perfectly acceptable just to kick people Palestinians out of their homes that they have lived in for many years because it is 'Jewish land'. That too is never going to end well.

I just wish they would stop delving into the history books trying to argue who's land it is, and just try and find a way to co-exist peacefully together. It would be nice if we could replace Hamah with Yasser Arafat and Netanyahu with Yitzhak Rabin, as they seemed to be making some sort of progress - but they're both dead.
Click to expand...



Yep, Rabin was the epitome of israelis who wanted to try to find a solution other than the policy of slowly trying to drive the palestinians out exemplified by Sharon and Netanyahu. I heard the story "the right complained about Rabin inviting Arafat to his house saying 'you don't invite your enemies to our house' and Rabin replying 'you don't make peace with your friends'. He was killed by a right-wing israeli, sponsor unknown.

It's odd how Arafat has become a sort of semi-beneficent figure after he shook Rabin's hand (and embraced Clinton) at the White House having been reviled for years. What he signed, the Oslo Accords (see Britannica) synopsis "The accords embodied two basic sets of exchanges. First, Israel would shed responsibility for the Palestinian population while retaining strategic control of the territory. The Palestinians would be rid of Israeli military rule and gain self-government, potentially leading to statehood. Second, Arafat’s disavowal of violence and his pledge to fight terrorism—through the use of a domestic Palestinian police force—would improve Israel’s security. The Palestinians would benefit from the large amount of foreign aid it would receive from the United States and other countries and from economic agreements made with Israel that were designed to foster employment and trade."
In effect Arafat's team gave up the right to self-determination and agreed to police whatever the state of israel left it in return for future negotiations and some us aid. This more or less blew Fatah and Arafat as a serious force to negotiate a future settlement that might have worked through fixing borders, making return happen and such like. It also, because the limits of the future negotiation weren't closed (settlements might be returned, some palestinians might return etc) destroyed Rabin's political (and mortal) future.

A very important point here is that, albeit for a shitty stupid deal, Arafat renounced violence and Fatah acknowledged the state of israel. Arab policy can change.

Fatah didn't stop palestinian violence, not surprising since given what they were defending. This in turn stalled the moderates' case israel, Netanyhu won the 1996 election there and israel resumed stealing land for settlements, preventing palestinians travelling in 'their own country' or evicting people from their homes.

Unsurprisingly as they weren't associated with the big sell-out, Hamas won parliament elections in 2006. In 2007 Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, with the support of israel, USA etc suspended the palestine authority and, in short, gaza came under control of hamas.


boogaloo said:
I just wish they would stop delving into the history books trying to argue who's land it is, and just try and find a way to co-exist peacefully together. It would be nice if we could replace Hamah with Yasser Arafat and Netanyahu with Yitzhak Rabin, as they seemed to be making some sort of progress - but they're both dead.
Click to expand...

Well, the land is the issue, as the people have got it stole most of it (and houses, money etc) from the people who don't (some of it was bought prior to 1948). So, if they are going to co-exist it has to be on the basis of land and political power. And trust.
 
This is an article by Lucy Garbett, a researcher at the London School of Economics and Social Science based in Jerusalem. It's quite a good description of some of the things palestinians have to put up with to try to retain their homes in jerusalem: "Since 1967, an estimated 14,500 Palestinians have been stripped of their residency status. In order to obtain ID cards, Palestinian Jerusalemites have to constantly prove that Jerusalem continues to be their “centre of life”, through proof of rental agreements and bills in their name. This comes with a surprise home visit, to check you really do live in the house, and has included looking to see if toothbrushes have been used in the bathroom. If Jerusalemites leave the country or reside in the West Bank, their residency status is revoked, leaving them without official documents and unable to return home. Every five years I must present myself at the Israeli Ministry of Interior with proof of my residence in Jerusalem and provide transcripts of any course I have taken during my university studies in the UK. On each visit, we are subjected to humiliating and invasive questioning, and each time we worry they may take away our only way to remain."

That's apart from israeli checkpoints if they want to move about Jerusalem or Palestine Authority controlled territory, intimidation and attacks, of course.
 
I've a football match to watch, so last post of the day on this thread from me. A Jewish Case for Palestinian refugee return.

It's a long article, so here's a quote to get you started.

".....many prominent Palestinians ....... have alluded to the bitter irony of Jews telling another people to give up on their homeland and assimilate in foreign lands. We, of all people, should understand how insulting that demand is. Jewish leaders keep insisting that, to achieve peace, Palestinians must forget the Nakba. But it is more accurate to say that peace will come when Jews remember. The better we remember why Palestinians left, the better we will understand why they deserve the chance to return.

Even for many Jews passionately opposed to Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, supporting Palestinian refugee return remains taboo. But if it is wrong to hold Palestinians as non-citizens under military law in the West Bank, and wrong to impose a blockade on Gaza that denies them the necessities of life, it is surely also wrong to expel them and prevent them from returning home. For decades, liberal Jews have parried this moral argument with a pragmatic one: Palestinian refugees should return only to the West Bank and Gaza, regardless of whether that is where they are from, as part of a two-state solution that gives both Palestinians and Jews a country of their own.

But with every passing year, as Israel further entrenches its control over all the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, this supposedly realistic alternative grows more detached from reality. There will be no viable, sovereign Palestinian state to which refugees can go. What remains of the case against Palestinian refugee return is a series of historical and legal arguments, peddled by Israeli and American Jewish leaders, about why Palestinians deserved their expulsion and have no right to remedy it now. These arguments are not only unconvincing but deeply ironic, since they ask Palestinians to repudiate the very principles of intergenerational memory and historical restitution that Jews hold sacred. If Palestinians have no right to return to their homeland, neither do we."


Ant the close of the article. If hope starts anywhere, it starts like this:

".............honestly facing the past can provide the basis for genuine reconciliation. In 1977, Palestinian American graduate student George Bisharat travelled to the West Jerusalem neighbourhood of Talbiyeh and knocked on the door of the house his grandfather had built and been robbed of. The elderly woman who answered the door told him his family had never lived there. “The humiliation of having to plead to enter my family’s home … burned inside me,” Bisharat later wrote. In 2000, by then a law professor, he returned with his family. As his wife and children looked on, a man originally from New York answered the door and told him the same thing: it was not his family’s home.

But after Bisharat chronicled his experiences, he received an invitation from a former soldier who had briefly lived in the house after Israeli forces seized it in 1948. When they met, the man said, “I am sorry, I was blind. What we did was wrong,” and then added, “I owe your family three month’s rent.” In that moment, Bisharat wrote, he experienced “an untapped reservoir of Palestinian magnanimity and good will that could transform the relations between the two peoples, and make things possible that are not possible today.”


There is a Hebrew word for the behaviour of that former soldier: teshuvah, which is generally translated as “repentance”. Ironically enough, its literal definition is “return”. In Jewish tradition, return need not be physical; it can also be ethical and spiritual. Which means that the return of Palestinian refugees – far from necessitating Jewish exile – could be a kind of return for us as well, a return to traditions of memory and justice that the Nakba has evicted from organised Jewish life. “The occupier and myself – both of us suffer from exile,” Mahmoud Darwish once declared. “He is an exile in me and I am the victim of his exile.” The longer the Nakba continues, the deeper this Jewish moral exile becomes. By facing it squarely and beginning a process of repair, Jews and Palestinians, in different ways, can start to come home."
 
Seems a ceasefire is in the pipeline.

"The Security Cabinet convened tonight.

"The Political Security Cabinet unanimously accepted the recommendation of all security officials, the chief of staff, the head of the Shin Bet [internal security agency], the head of the Mossad [foreign intelligence] and the head of the National Security Council, to accept the Egyptian initiative for a bilateral unconditional ceasefire, which will take effect at a later date.

"The chief of staff, the military echelon and the head of the GSS reviewed before the ministers Israel's great achievements in the campaign, some of which were unprecedented.

"The political echelon emphasizes that the reality on the ground will determine the continuation of the campaign."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Essexyellows
National News Nanny State.............
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Peterdev
Peterdev
Back
Top Bottom