The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture

1910121415

Comments

  • Golden Key wrote: »
    The People of Israel are in Existential peril, trying to survive ...
    This is about a lot more than land ...

    So are the People of Palestine.

    So that's one thing they've got in common. Maybe they could find ways to use that for greater safety and better lives for all.

    YES ... !!! ... Two states, side by side in genuine Peace ...
    (The original idea of The 1948 Partition ...) ...
    (also happened now and then, off and on, ca. 1000 BCE - 63 BCE ...)
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Green Left used to be Direct Action which was a purportedly socialist rag which used to be hawked on the streets by young enthusiasts. I could not resist asking one of the hawkers how long had it been since the East became Green. He didn't get the reference.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Yes, the cry at Town Hall and other city train stations in the late 60's to the mid 70's: "Direct Action Socialist Newspaper 20 Cents" with very few being bought.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Well, you seem to have at least posted an unsubstantiated accusation of antisemitism.

    It is well known and well substantiated in these parts.

    Wouldn't finds its way into the British press of course.
    I don't know what "these parts" means to you, but would you care to provide the substantiation? Gee D's claim was
    The Marrickville Greens were opposed to any council business going to local businesses owned by Jews.
    We're not limited to the British press (and I'm not sure why you're mentioning it) - wouldn't that sort of thing show up somewhere in the Australian press? It certainly isn't supported by this Wiki article that describes the Israel boycott proposed in the Marrickville Council.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Dave W surely you know not to use Wikipedia as a reference point.

    I’ll trawl around & see what I can find for your edification but as a technophobe may have trouble sending it.

    You could of course take my word and Gee D’s 🙄
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.

    The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.

    The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...

    Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...

    We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?

    The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
    It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...

    So the Patriarchs are even MORE irrelevant.

    No ... The Patriarchs are a FACT of history, necessarily taken into account, along with 1948, 1967, 1973, etc. ... all of which lead up to the facts on the ground on 1-6-2020 CE

    I know some Biblical Scholars who would argue that point.

    Yes ...
    But the existence of The Tomb of The Patriarchs is not in doubt ...
    It's in Hebron ... You can look up photos of it ...
    It is an important shrine for Observant Jews and Observant Muslims ...

    Which is in Palestinian territory, btw.

    The Palestinian radicals (i.e, the Palestinian leadership -- The PA, Hamas, Hezbollah) regard ever square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory ...
    So ...

    So does any rational person.

    Exactly the issue at hand ...
    Hence ... the fact that the existence of The ("Jewish") State of Israel will not be a negotiating point ...

    'That ever[y] (sic) square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory'?

    If and when sincere negotiating partners come to the table, there will be land swaps, adjustments, reparations and compensation ...

    But, no ... The Israelis are not going to negotiate themselves into minority status in their own country, nor will they agree to reducing The ("Jewish") State of Israel to a couple of neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and maybe one small section of West Jerusalem ...
    It's just not going to happen .. Period ...

    You do know that the Arab League, with the support of the PA, offered recognition of Israel in return for withdrawal from the occupied territories and negotiation of a settlement for Palestinian refugees. Netenyahu refused.

    Define "occupied territory" ... "There's the rub ..."

    The land Israel occupied in 1967, as I hope you well know.

    But ... The fiercest critics of The ("Jewish") State of Israel regard every square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied territory" ...

    Why do we need to pay attention to the fiercest critics? How about we just think about the less fierce critics, instead of constantly turning everything into polarisation and extremes?
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate

    DaveW: FYI

    https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/boycott-israel-at-your-peril-council-told/news-story/5172ed542d6b6eee31082e40bed00759#:~:text=Greens-led Marrickville Council, in the city's inner west,,of politicians, business leaders and the Jewish community.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    DaveW: FYI

    https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/boycott-israel-at-your-peril-council-told/news-story/5172ed542d6b6eee31082e40bed00759#:~:text=Greens-led Marrickville Council, in the city's inner west,,of politicians, business leaders and the Jewish community.
    That says they called for a boycott of Israeli products, not of “local businesses owned by Jews.” Your claim of antisemitism is still unsubstantiated.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    No it isn't. Here in Ox anti-Israeli means anti-Jewish as far as the Jewish community is concerned. That community is an easy target for the like of the Marrickville Council greenoids since that community consistently votes for the Coalition.

    Mate you don't live here, you don't get it. I can hardly expect you to get it but it would be wise to back off.
  • Sojourner wrote: »
    No it isn't. Here in Ox anti-Israeli means anti-Jewish as far as the Jewish community is concerned. That community is an easy target for the like of the Marrickville Council greenoids since that community consistently votes for the Coalition.

    Mate you don't live here, you don't get it. I can hardly expect you to get it but it would be wise to back off.

    That apologists for Israel, both Jews and non-Jews, equate BDS with anti-semitism is not news nor restricted to Australia. It remains, however, mendacious bollocks everywhere in the world.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Are there no loony fringes in the Hebrides? If not lucky you.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Sojourner wrote: »
    No it isn't. Here in Ox anti-Israeli means anti-Jewish as far as the Jewish community is concerned.

    Only the parts of the Jewish community that are stupid.

    EDIT: And please don't think that means that I think the Jewish community has any greater rate of stupidity than other communities. But nor is it immune to stupidity. I expect it has about the same rate of stupidity as other communities.

    I also find I share some of my general political views with a certain number of stupid people, and my goodness it's painful.

  • Sojourner wrote: »
    Are there no loony fringes in the Hebrides? If not lucky you.

    Not on my island of residence, but go up to Lewis and you'll find plenty - mostly hardline Calvinists. Couldn't tell you whether they're more likely to be ardent Zionists, anti-semites, or both.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    No it isn't. Here in Ox anti-Israeli means anti-Jewish as far as the Jewish community is concerned.

    Only the parts of the Jewish community that are stupid.

    Or are trying to shut down criticism of Israel by swinging the biggest club they have -- accusation of antisemitism.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    No it isn't. Here in Ox anti-Israeli means anti-Jewish as far as the Jewish community is concerned.

    Only the parts of the Jewish community that are stupid.

    EDIT: And please don't think that means that I think the Jewish community has any greater rate of stupidity than other communities. But nor is it immune to stupidity. I expect it has about the same rate of stupidity as other communities.

    I also find I share some of my general political views with a certain number of stupid people, and my goodness it's painful.

    In fairness I think a lot of Jewish folk are dealing with trauma arising from the Shoah. It's understandable that people would be paranoid after what happened. Fanning and indulging that paranoia, however, is deeply irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    No it isn't. Here in Ox anti-Israeli means anti-Jewish as far as the Jewish community is concerned. That community is an easy target for the like of the Marrickville Council greenoids since that community consistently votes for the Coalition.
    I don’t know where “Ox” is, but I don’t think you can expect everyone to accept your idiosyncratic definition of antisemitism.
    Mate you don't live here, you don't get it. I can hardly expect you to get it but it would be wise to back off.
    Or else what? Are we going to have some kind of internet throw-down?
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    We all know that there are loony groups everywhere who have their own axes to grind. I also maintain that in the case of the then Marrickville Council pushers and shakers that the area of local government is not the place for their agendas.

    That was an inappropriate use of their power ( such as it was).
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    No it isn't. Here in Ox anti-Israeli means anti-Jewish as far as the Jewish community is concerned.

    Only the parts of the Jewish community that are stupid.

    EDIT: And please don't think that means that I think the Jewish community has any greater rate of stupidity than other communities. But nor is it immune to stupidity. I expect it has about the same rate of stupidity as other communities.

    I also find I share some of my general political views with a certain number of stupid people, and my goodness it's painful.

    Now don't be like that. Think how the so-called stupid might feel about sharing their some of their general political views with you.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Sojourner wrote: »
    We all know that there are loony groups everywhere who have their own axes to grind. I also maintain that in the case of the then Marrickville Council pushers and shakers that the area of local government is not the place for their agendas.

    That was an inappropriate use of their power ( such as it was).
    Maybe, but it wasn’t calling for a boycott of “local businesses owned by Jews.”
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    No it isn't. Here in Ox anti-Israeli means anti-Jewish as far as the Jewish community is concerned.

    Only the parts of the Jewish community that are stupid.

    Or are trying to shut down criticism of Israel by swinging the biggest club they have -- accusation of antisemitism.

    That's a pretty pathetic club to swing in this day and age. You know and I know that it doesn't shut down criticism. It's 75 years since the Holocaust and the survivors are few on the ground.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Are there no loony fringes in the Hebrides? If not lucky you.

    Not on my island of residence, but go up to Lewis and you'll find plenty - mostly hardline Calvinists. Couldn't tell you whether they're more likely to be ardent Zionists, anti-semites, or both.

    I'd suspect neither given those folks' views on double predestination...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Sojourner wrote: »
    We all know that there are loony groups everywhere who have their own axes to grind. I also maintain that in the case of the then Marrickville Council pushers and shakers that the area of local government is not the place for their agendas.

    That was an inappropriate use of their power ( such as it was).

    Sure. Which is a completely different point. It's possible to argue that a local council best not be getting itself involved in foreign policy without asserting that, because the council directed its attention to the nation of Israel rather than Belarus or Turkmenistan, it miraculously became guilty of religious or racial discrimination.**

    But the basic rule of discussing Israel/Palestine seems to be that he who gets his knickers in a twist the fastest wins. A principle that has expanded to many other topics now that social media is a thing.

    **There being ample Australian court authority that discrimination on the basis of a nation or citizenship is not racial discrimination under our law.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    The stupidity of the whole 'anti-Israel is anti-Jewish' trope can be easily demonstrated by the fact that the words are not interchangeable. It's the Israeli government. It's not the Jewish government.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    I have no doubt that you are right in the final assessment.

    Having said that I suspect that the former burghers of Marrickville would have even been able to spell Turkmenistan or Belarus much less know anything about either. They's have been on safe grounds since neither nation was ( or is) well-represented ( or represented at all) in that particular local government area.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Having said that I suspect that the former burghers of Marrickville would have even been able to spell Turkmenistan or Belarus much less know anything about either.

    Apparently it was a mistake for me to refer to a forest by mentioning a couple of the other trees that can be found in it.

  • I think the difficulty with boycotting businesses 'directly or indirectly associated with Israel' is the high likelihood that Jewish Australians have a direct or indirect association with Israel. Such a broad ban really does smack of anti-Semitism, not just anti-Israel. Its how people who lack judgement end up protesting outside a shop in Melbourne that sells coffee, pastry and chocolate. What's next?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Nothing:

    1. You use their Newspeak.

    2. What, the unsubstantiated lie?

    To say that I have posted a lie is deeply offensive.

    I have no idea what you mean by "their Newspeak".

    To lie that anti-Israel protest is a synonym for Jew hating is deeply offensive.
    To post that lie libellously is more deeply offensive.
    To defend it profoundly deeply offensive.

    Google is your friend. Put the cursor on the word, left click twice, right click, eight down, 'Search in sidebar for "Newspeak"', read. Apply above.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.

    The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.

    The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...

    Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...

    We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?

    The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
    It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...

    So the Patriarchs are even MORE irrelevant.

    No ... The Patriarchs are a FACT of history, necessarily taken into account, along with 1948, 1967, 1973, etc. ... all of which lead up to the facts on the ground on 1-6-2020 CE

    I know some Biblical Scholars who would argue that point.

    Yes ...
    But the existence of The Tomb of The Patriarchs is not in doubt ...
    It's in Hebron ... You can look up photos of it ...
    It is an important shrine for Observant Jews and Observant Muslims ...

    Which is in Palestinian territory, btw.

    The Palestinian radicals (i.e, the Palestinian leadership -- The PA, Hamas, Hezbollah) regard ever square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory ...
    So ...

    So does any rational person.

    Exactly the issue at hand ...
    Hence ... the fact that the existence of The ("Jewish") State of Israel will not be a negotiating point ...

    'That ever[y] (sic) square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory'?

    If and when sincere negotiating partners come to the table, there will be land swaps, adjustments, reparations and compensation ...

    But, no ... The Israelis are not going to negotiate themselves into minority status in their own country, nor will they agree to reducing The ("Jewish") State of Israel to a couple of neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and maybe one small section of West Jerusalem ...
    It's just not going to happen .. Period ...

    No Palestinian representatives can sign away their people's land. Whatever they sign. As Percy Allenine says in Tinker Tailor, 'Arabs. You can rent one, but you can't buy one.'

    Israel is buying ten thousand years of hate.

    The People of Israel are in Existential peril, trying to survive ...
    This is about a lot more than land ...

    They are in existential peril as the UN and they stole, and they continue to steal, Arab land and oppress Arabs in their land fragments.

    Everything was going just swimmingly -- for everybody -- before 1948 ... ???

    Classic fallacy. What's that got to do with the fact that Israel and the world will continue to reap the whirlwind, from this primus inter pares imperial disaster with 'Made in England' written all over it, like Kashmir and Honk Kong and sub-Saharan Africa and America and...?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I didn't recall anything to do with BDS until Max Brenner came up, and I heard a little ding in my head. Here's an article from Green Left, a radical newspaper in Australia not associated, afaik, with the Australian Greens. I don't know if the trots who produce the paper are involved with the Greens in Sydney. They are a rogue branch, often in dispute with the rest of the party, and that's the Trot MO.

    The activists targeted the business because its parent company sends chocolate to IDF soldiers. They were probably not being anti-semetic, as distinct from anti-Israel, but it is a close call. It is a flimsy excuse to boycott a Jewish business selling sweet treats and coffee in Australia. I will give the organisers the benefit of the doubt, because they are mostly young enthusiasts looking to make a name for themselves in radical circles. They didn't think it through.

    But make no mistake: this action could easily be interpreted as anti-semetic, and fast, loud talking would be required to justify black banning a chain of cafes because its effective owner sends chocolate treats and sports equipment to support the troops.

    'This is why I campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

    The parent company of Max Brenner — a chocolate shop company that has become the focus for the BDS campaign in Australia — is the Strauss Group. It is not merely a financial partner in this apartheid the way many multinationals are. Its support of the Israeli military extends as far as to donate care packages to commandos of the Golani and Givati brigades to "sweeten their special moments".

    These brigades are Israel's shock troops; the Givati brigade reached the farthest into Gaza's borders of all units involved in the 2009-10 invasion. The Golani brigade took up station on checkpoints in the Palestinian city of Hebron shortly after I visited the West Bank. Christian Peacemaker Team activists documented a rise in the number of serious human rights violations against the Palestinian people of Hebron at the time.'

    Er, what's Jew hating about that?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I think the difficulty with boycotting businesses 'directly or indirectly associated with Israel' is the high likelihood that Jewish Australians have a direct or indirect association with Israel. Such a broad ban really does smack of anti-Semitism, not just anti-Israel. Its how people who lack judgement end up protesting outside a shop in Melbourne that sells coffee, pastry and chocolate. What's next?

    Thing is, Australia is half a world away from Australia. Unless your business involves Jewish cultural particulars likely to be predominantly made or available in Israel then there is no particular imperative to have associations with the country. Personally I think the people who lack judgement in this situation are those enabling the Israeli regime, not those challenging it.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    'The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture' is in the increasing clarity between speaking truth to power and power lying back.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 9
    You both expect too much if you expect Jews to deny Israel or to refrain from supporting Israel's armed forces. Some do, of course. Strauss Group, based on the article you posted Martin and the article I found in Green Left, gives IDF soldiers chocolate and sporting equipment. They don't supply weapons or ammunition, or other instruments of war. That is what leaves BDS open to the charge of anti-semitism in the application of its bans in this instance. I do not say that the ban is anti-semetic in intention.

    The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture is the shift in alliances in the Middle East and whether that might open up the potential for a political solution to the present situation. My hope is that the Saudis' conflicting priorities of retaining their leadership in the Muslim world and allying with Israel against Iran might lead them to put pressure on all parties to get that political solution, removing the barrier to their anti-Iran alliance.

    Some Palestinians no longer speak of the two state solution. They no longer see any value in the limited control that Palestinians have in Gaza and the West Bank now that the roadmap to peace has been abandoned. Now, the words used are Apartheid and Bantustans. Peace is not spoken of in these analyses. Instead Israel is to be treated like the Apartheid regime in South Africa. It is to be destroyed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I see no hope for peace in this sort of thinking. It is the corollary to the right-wing Israelis and the fundamentalists. They want to see one state too, a state without Arabs.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    You both expect too much if you expect Jews to deny Israel or to refrain from supporting Israel's armed forces.

    I disagree. A basic expectation of common decency is not to give aid and comfort to armed forces engaged in an illegal occupation.

    And yes, the Israeli regime needs to be destroyed but, as with South Africa, that doesn't mean killing people it means changing the unjust laws.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    You both expect too much if you expect Jews to deny Israel or to refrain from supporting Israel's armed forces. Some do, of course. Strauss Group, based on the article you posted Martin and the article I found in Green Left, gives IDF soldiers chocolate and sporting equipment. They don't supply weapons or ammunition, or other instruments of war. That is what leaves BDS open to the charge of anti-semitism in the application of its bans in this instance. I do not say that the ban is anti-semetic in intention.

    The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture is the shift in alliances in the Middle East and whether that might open up the potential for a political solution to the present situation. My hope is that the Saudis' conflicting priorities of retaining their leadership in the Muslim world and allying with Israel against Iran might lead them to put pressure on all parties to get that political solution, removing the barrier to their anti-Iran alliance.

    Some Palestinians no longer speak of the two state solution. They no longer see any value in the limited control that Palestinians have in Gaza and the West Bank now that the roadmap to peace has been abandoned. Now, the words used are Apartheid and Bantustans. Peace is not spoken of in these analyses. Instead Israel is to be treated like the Apartheid regime in South Africa. It is to be destroyed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I see no hope for peace in this sort of thinking. It is the corollary to the right-wing Israelis and the fundamentalists. They want to see one state too, a state without Arabs.

    I expect nothing at all except the status quo to set harder until the next ice age maximum of anything else capable of destroying nation states. The mythical parousia would be nice. If it were peaceful.

    How does opposing the Australian subsidiary of an Israeli company that supplies shock and crack troops with supplies leave BDS open to the charge of Jew hating?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    My hope is that the Saudis' conflicting priorities of retaining their leadership in the Muslim world and allying with Israel against Iran might lead them to put pressure on all parties to get that political solution, removing the barrier to their anti-Iran alliance.
    The alliance against Iran is not a conflicting priority with leadership of the Muslim world: Saudi Arabia's conflict with Iran is over who can claim leadership of the Muslim world. Iran is Shi'a which is a disadvantage to it; but it has a better record of bellicose rhetoric against outsiders. Saudi Arabia started out when Arab nationalism was mostly secular; however the Saudi brand of Islam used to be alienating to Muslims who don't share it. A lot of Saudi money has been spent on normalising it, but Iran threw its hat into the ring before the Saudis got very far with that.
    Instead Israel is to be treated like the Apartheid regime in South Africa. It is to be destroyed.
    Israel is not equivalent to the apartheid regime. It is equivalent to South Africa. Wanting to replace a particular regime is not the same as wanting to destroy a state.
    The current Israeli regime, by building illegal settlements in the Occupied Territory, and declaring that in any negotiation those settlements will go to Israel along with all main roads between them, and the water rights to the Jordan, has pretty much rendered any two-state solution that respects the facts on the ground untenable. Israel had the chance to build on the Oslo accords; the present regime did its best not to. That is not the fault of the Palestinians, even if it suits the extremists on their side.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I expect nothing at all except the status quo to set harder until the next ice age maximum oR [adjacent to 'f'] anything else capable of destroying nation states.

  • orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.

    The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.

    The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...

    Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...

    We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?

    The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
    It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...

    So the Patriarchs are even MORE irrelevant.

    No ... The Patriarchs are a FACT of history, necessarily taken into account, along with 1948, 1967, 1973, etc. ... all of which lead up to the facts on the ground on 1-6-2020 CE

    I know some Biblical Scholars who would argue that point.

    Yes ...
    But the existence of The Tomb of The Patriarchs is not in doubt ...
    It's in Hebron ... You can look up photos of it ...
    It is an important shrine for Observant Jews and Observant Muslims ...

    Which is in Palestinian territory, btw.

    The Palestinian radicals (i.e, the Palestinian leadership -- The PA, Hamas, Hezbollah) regard ever square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory ...
    So ...

    So does any rational person.

    Exactly the issue at hand ...
    Hence ... the fact that the existence of The ("Jewish") State of Israel will not be a negotiating point ...

    'That ever[y] (sic) square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory'?

    If and when sincere negotiating partners come to the table, there will be land swaps, adjustments, reparations and compensation ...

    But, no ... The Israelis are not going to negotiate themselves into minority status in their own country, nor will they agree to reducing The ("Jewish") State of Israel to a couple of neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and maybe one small section of West Jerusalem ...
    It's just not going to happen .. Period ...

    You do know that the Arab League, with the support of the PA, offered recognition of Israel in return for withdrawal from the occupied territories and negotiation of a settlement for Palestinian refugees. Netenyahu refused.

    Define "occupied territory" ... "There's the rub ..."

    The land Israel occupied in 1967, as I hope you well know.

    But ... The fiercest critics of The ("Jewish") State of Israel regard every square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied territory" ...

    Why do we need to pay attention to the fiercest critics? How about we just think about the less fierce critics, instead of constantly turning everything into polarisation and extremes?

    Hamas and Hezbollah ...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.

    The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.

    The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...

    Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...

    We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?

    The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
    It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...

    So the Patriarchs are even MORE irrelevant.

    No ... The Patriarchs are a FACT of history, necessarily taken into account, along with 1948, 1967, 1973, etc. ... all of which lead up to the facts on the ground on 1-6-2020 CE

    I know some Biblical Scholars who would argue that point.

    Yes ...
    But the existence of The Tomb of The Patriarchs is not in doubt ...
    It's in Hebron ... You can look up photos of it ...
    It is an important shrine for Observant Jews and Observant Muslims ...

    Which is in Palestinian territory, btw.

    The Palestinian radicals (i.e, the Palestinian leadership -- The PA, Hamas, Hezbollah) regard ever square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory ...
    So ...

    So does any rational person.

    Exactly the issue at hand ...
    Hence ... the fact that the existence of The ("Jewish") State of Israel will not be a negotiating point ...

    'That ever[y] (sic) square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory'?

    If and when sincere negotiating partners come to the table, there will be land swaps, adjustments, reparations and compensation ...

    But, no ... The Israelis are not going to negotiate themselves into minority status in their own country, nor will they agree to reducing The ("Jewish") State of Israel to a couple of neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and maybe one small section of West Jerusalem ...
    It's just not going to happen .. Period ...

    You do know that the Arab League, with the support of the PA, offered recognition of Israel in return for withdrawal from the occupied territories and negotiation of a settlement for Palestinian refugees. Netenyahu refused.

    Define "occupied territory" ... "There's the rub ..."

    The land Israel occupied in 1967, as I hope you well know.

    But ... The fiercest critics of The ("Jewish") State of Israel regard every square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied territory" ...

    Why do we need to pay attention to the fiercest critics? How about we just think about the less fierce critics, instead of constantly turning everything into polarisation and extremes?

    There is nothing polarized or extreme in the Palestinians wanting their lands back after an alien UN refugee colony was put there.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.

    The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.

    The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...

    Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...

    We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?

    The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
    It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...

    So the Patriarchs are even MORE irrelevant.

    No ... The Patriarchs are a FACT of history, necessarily taken into account, along with 1948, 1967, 1973, etc. ... all of which lead up to the facts on the ground on 1-6-2020 CE

    I know some Biblical Scholars who would argue that point.

    Yes ...
    But the existence of The Tomb of The Patriarchs is not in doubt ...
    It's in Hebron ... You can look up photos of it ...
    It is an important shrine for Observant Jews and Observant Muslims ...

    Which is in Palestinian territory, btw.

    The Palestinian radicals (i.e, the Palestinian leadership -- The PA, Hamas, Hezbollah) regard ever square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory ...
    So ...

    So does any rational person.

    Exactly the issue at hand ...
    Hence ... the fact that the existence of The ("Jewish") State of Israel will not be a negotiating point ...

    'That ever[y] (sic) square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory'?

    If and when sincere negotiating partners come to the table, there will be land swaps, adjustments, reparations and compensation ...

    But, no ... The Israelis are not going to negotiate themselves into minority status in their own country, nor will they agree to reducing The ("Jewish") State of Israel to a couple of neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and maybe one small section of West Jerusalem ...
    It's just not going to happen .. Period ...

    You do know that the Arab League, with the support of the PA, offered recognition of Israel in return for withdrawal from the occupied territories and negotiation of a settlement for Palestinian refugees. Netenyahu refused.

    Define "occupied territory" ... "There's the rub ..."

    The land Israel occupied in 1967, as I hope you well know.

    But ... The fiercest critics of The ("Jewish") State of Israel regard every square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied territory" ...

    Why do we need to pay attention to the fiercest critics? How about we just think about the less fierce critics, instead of constantly turning everything into polarisation and extremes?

    There is nothing polarized or extreme in the Palestinians wanting their lands back after an alien UN refugee colony was put there.

    ... and this is why The ("Jewish") State of Israel is not going away ...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    They're doing it again. It works. It always works. England. Spain. Germany. All with regard to Jews. And everywhere else where natives are displaced or minorities "won't" assimilate. It's always permanent. As in any other species.

    The implicit notion that Jews are native but Palestinians somehow aren't is crazy.

    The implicit notion in this thread seems to be that Palestinians are native but Jews are not ...

    Remember ... that in 1918 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for death for anyone who sold land to a Jew ...

    We all knew that. So what? What has that got to do with the catastrophic injustice perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the UN?

    The facts on the ground right now -- on January 6, 2020 -- must be the starting point for serious negotiations ... Period ...
    It won't go back to 1947 for a re-do ... or, as pointed out, to 70 CE ...

    So the Patriarchs are even MORE irrelevant.

    No ... The Patriarchs are a FACT of history, necessarily taken into account, along with 1948, 1967, 1973, etc. ... all of which lead up to the facts on the ground on 1-6-2020 CE

    I know some Biblical Scholars who would argue that point.

    Yes ...
    But the existence of The Tomb of The Patriarchs is not in doubt ...
    It's in Hebron ... You can look up photos of it ...
    It is an important shrine for Observant Jews and Observant Muslims ...

    Which is in Palestinian territory, btw.

    The Palestinian radicals (i.e, the Palestinian leadership -- The PA, Hamas, Hezbollah) regard ever square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory ...
    So ...

    So does any rational person.

    Exactly the issue at hand ...
    Hence ... the fact that the existence of The ("Jewish") State of Israel will not be a negotiating point ...

    'That ever[y] (sic) square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied" Palestinian territory'?

    If and when sincere negotiating partners come to the table, there will be land swaps, adjustments, reparations and compensation ...

    But, no ... The Israelis are not going to negotiate themselves into minority status in their own country, nor will they agree to reducing The ("Jewish") State of Israel to a couple of neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and maybe one small section of West Jerusalem ...
    It's just not going to happen .. Period ...

    You do know that the Arab League, with the support of the PA, offered recognition of Israel in return for withdrawal from the occupied territories and negotiation of a settlement for Palestinian refugees. Netenyahu refused.

    Define "occupied territory" ... "There's the rub ..."

    The land Israel occupied in 1967, as I hope you well know.

    But ... The fiercest critics of The ("Jewish") State of Israel regard every square meter of The Land of Israel as "occupied territory" ...

    Why do we need to pay attention to the fiercest critics? How about we just think about the less fierce critics, instead of constantly turning everything into polarisation and extremes?

    There is nothing polarized or extreme in the Palestinians wanting their lands back after an alien UN refugee colony was put there.

    ... and this is why The ("Jewish") State of Israel is not going away ...

    Why the quotation marks in your non sequitur? It's a Jewish state, the Jewish state.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    It's because he's not sure what "Jewish" means, or something.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    You both expect too much if you expect Jews to deny Israel or to refrain from supporting Israel's armed forces.

    But I expect them not to lie and smear their opponents. Hell, it used to be considered antisemitic to say that Jews did things like that. Now it's antisemitic to say they don't.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    The 2 responses to my previous post were, from one poster, a complete and total ignoring of what I said to merely repeat the same thing I was commenting against without even bothering to construct a sentence, and from another poster a virtual non sequitur using 2 words from what I said to just say what they wanted to say on some other angle.

    This is how all debate on the subject of Israel tends to go (and indeed, debate on so many contentious subjects). It's pathetic. It's not REMOTELY useful.

    Every debate on anything of real importance is just constantly derailed because there is always, always a group of people who just to open their mouths, say something they think was terribly clever, and then go on with their day feeling smug.

    Well fuck you. No wonder sometimes we just end up deciding to bomb somewhere into oblivion, because that's the only option left when people are so goddamn intractable. No wonder we end up with 'villains' in films who've decided that the best solution is to destroy everything and start again.

    We're talking about a situation that has made people miserable, or dead, for decades. It's not about who wins. It's about the fact that everyone has been losing for so long. EVERYONE. And all we get out of a conversation is a bunch of cheap, meaningless verbal shots.

    Do you realise, that in all the space of endless arguing about whether we can use Israeli and Jewish as synonyms and all the other ridiculous crap, I haven't once been in a position to start articulating and, maybe developing or altering in the face of meaningful rational questions, any kind of actual position on Israeli policies and Israel/Palestine solutions? Not once. Not once.

    And no-one has asked me for my position either. The only questions I get are semi-rhetorical ones from bloody Teilhard about various Jewish matters that have nothing to do with the Israeli government.

    It's utterly shameful. This thread is utterly shameful. If you wonder why the world's big problems aren't being solved, it's because no-one is ever actually in a position to sit down to try and solve them together, the way big problems need, because the world has too many people who think that a problem is merely an opportunity to score points and make themselves feel a little more self-satisfied, and the rest of us have to spend all of our time fighting past such people to try to get to some sort of factual substrate that can be used as a starting point.

    Do not be proud of yourselves.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I'm sure we all feel properly scolded now.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    My hope is that the Saudis' conflicting priorities of retaining their leadership in the Muslim world and allying with Israel against Iran might lead them to put pressure on all parties to get that political solution, removing the barrier to their anti-Iran alliance.
    The alliance against Iran is not a conflicting priority with leadership of the Muslim world: Saudi Arabia's conflict with Iran is over who can claim leadership of the Muslim world. Iran is Shi'a which is a disadvantage to it; but it has a better record of bellicose rhetoric against outsiders. Saudi Arabia started out when Arab nationalism was mostly secular; however the Saudi brand of Islam used to be alienating to Muslims who don't share it. A lot of Saudi money has been spent on normalising it, but Iran threw its hat into the ring before the Saudis got very far with that.
    Instead Israel is to be treated like the Apartheid regime in South Africa. It is to be destroyed.
    Israel is not equivalent to the apartheid regime. It is equivalent to South Africa. Wanting to replace a particular regime is not the same as wanting to destroy a state.
    The current Israeli regime, by building illegal settlements in the Occupied Territory, and declaring that in any negotiation those settlements will go to Israel along with all main roads between them, and the water rights to the Jordan, has pretty much rendered any two-state solution that respects the facts on the ground untenable. Israel had the chance to build on the Oslo accords; the present regime did its best not to. That is not the fault of the Palestinians, even if it suits the extremists on their side.

    The inconsistency arises when normalising relations with Israel is raised. Millions of ordinary Muslims (not ALL, I stress) consider that to be a heinous wrong. I have seen statements by clerics and politicians in Indonesia and Malaysia responding very negatively to the recent deals between Israel and the Gulf States. Saudi Arabia's position in the Muslim world would be damaged, and their challenge is to minimise that damage.

    Saudi Arabia doesn't need Qatar or Morocco or any of the other small Arab states to join with it in its war on Iran. It has their allegiance already. It needs Israel.

    I haven't seen anything out of Palestine that suggests that wanting to replace the Israeli regime is not the same as wanting to destroy the State of Israel. If you are able to link to anything that shows that those who call the Israeli regime an Apartheid state means that they do not want to destroy the State of Israel, please provide a link. I am not using that as rhetoric. I would like to see evidence of it. I think there is a clear implication in using the language of Apartheid and Bantustan that the goal is the destruction of the State of Israel.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I think there is a clear implication in using the language of Apartheid and Bantustan that the goal is the destruction of the State of Israel.

    Even when it's an Israeli lawyer who warns of apartheid?
  • Dave W wrote: »
    It's because he's not sure what "Jewish" means, or something.

    It's because some have suggested that The State of Israel could still have a "Jewish" "character" without being really Jewish ...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    It's because he's not sure what "Jewish" means, or something.

    It's because some have suggested that The State of Israel could still have a "Jewish" "character" without being really Jewish ...

    Oh FFS. That is not what was suggested. What was said that the name of the country is not "The Jewish State of Israel". Because it isn't.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    The 2 responses to my previous post were, from one poster, a complete and total ignoring of what I said to merely repeat the same thing I was commenting against without even bothering to construct a sentence, and from another poster a virtual non sequitur using 2 words from what I said to just say what they wanted to say on some other angle.

    This is how all debate on the subject of Israel tends to go (and indeed, debate on so many contentious subjects). It's pathetic. It's not REMOTELY useful.

    Every debate on anything of real importance is just constantly derailed because there is always, always a group of people who just to open their mouths, say something they think was terribly clever, and then go on with their day feeling smug.

    Well fuck you. No wonder sometimes we just end up deciding to bomb somewhere into oblivion, because that's the only option left when people are so goddamn intractable. No wonder we end up with 'villains' in films who've decided that the best solution is to destroy everything and start again.

    We're talking about a situation that has made people miserable, or dead, for decades. It's not about who wins. It's about the fact that everyone has been losing for so long. EVERYONE. And all we get out of a conversation is a bunch of cheap, meaningless verbal shots.

    Do you realise, that in all the space of endless arguing about whether we can use Israeli and Jewish as synonyms and all the other ridiculous crap, I haven't once been in a position to start articulating and, maybe developing or altering in the face of meaningful rational questions, any kind of actual position on Israeli policies and Israel/Palestine solutions? Not once. Not once.

    And no-one has asked me for my position either. The only questions I get are semi-rhetorical ones from bloody Teilhard about various Jewish matters that have nothing to do with the Israeli government.

    It's utterly shameful. This thread is utterly shameful. If you wonder why the world's big problems aren't being solved, it's because no-one is ever actually in a position to sit down to try and solve them together, the way big problems need, because the world has too many people who think that a problem is merely an opportunity to score points and make themselves feel a little more self-satisfied, and the rest of us have to spend all of our time fighting past such people to try to get to some sort of factual substrate that can be used as a starting point.

    Do not be proud of yourselves.

    Oh, there have been numerous -- very many -- attempts during the last 3,000 years for neighbors of The State of Israel and of The People of Israel to decide FOR them what "the solution" should be ... which is why the Jews have recently taken matters of their own destiny into their own hands ... and why they are simply flatly not going to negotiate The ("Jewish") State of Israel out of existence ...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    The 2 responses to my previous post were, from one poster, a complete and total ignoring of what I said to merely repeat the same thing I was commenting against without even bothering to construct a sentence, and from another poster a virtual non sequitur using 2 words from what I said to just say what they wanted to say on some other angle.

    This is how all debate on the subject of Israel tends to go (and indeed, debate on so many contentious subjects). It's pathetic. It's not REMOTELY useful.

    Every debate on anything of real importance is just constantly derailed because there is always, always a group of people who just to open their mouths, say something they think was terribly clever, and then go on with their day feeling smug.

    Well fuck you. No wonder sometimes we just end up deciding to bomb somewhere into oblivion, because that's the only option left when people are so goddamn intractable. No wonder we end up with 'villains' in films who've decided that the best solution is to destroy everything and start again.

    We're talking about a situation that has made people miserable, or dead, for decades. It's not about who wins. It's about the fact that everyone has been losing for so long. EVERYONE. And all we get out of a conversation is a bunch of cheap, meaningless verbal shots.

    Do you realise, that in all the space of endless arguing about whether we can use Israeli and Jewish as synonyms and all the other ridiculous crap, I haven't once been in a position to start articulating and, maybe developing or altering in the face of meaningful rational questions, any kind of actual position on Israeli policies and Israel/Palestine solutions? Not once. Not once.

    And no-one has asked me for my position either. The only questions I get are semi-rhetorical ones from bloody Teilhard about various Jewish matters that have nothing to do with the Israeli government.

    It's utterly shameful. This thread is utterly shameful. If you wonder why the world's big problems aren't being solved, it's because no-one is ever actually in a position to sit down to try and solve them together, the way big problems need, because the world has too many people who think that a problem is merely an opportunity to score points and make themselves feel a little more self-satisfied, and the rest of us have to spend all of our time fighting past such people to try to get to some sort of factual substrate that can be used as a starting point.

    Do not be proud of yourselves.

    Oh, there have been numerous -- very many -- attempts during the last 3,000 years for neighbors of The State of Israel and of The People of Israel to decide FOR them what "the solution" should be ... which is why the Jews have recently taken matters of their own destiny into their own hands ... and why they are simply flatly not going to negotiate The ("Jewish") State of Israel out of existence ...

    And yet again, you write something that has precisely nothing to do with what I said. Nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.