The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture

1679111215

Comments

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 5
    Dafyd wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.

    Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.
    No. The Israeli hawks are asking to be given credit for the standards of other liberal democracies but to be held to the same standards as the surrounding nations. Basically it is to be allowed to switch between whatever standard of comparison is most useful for the Israeli hawks in the immediate context.
    I really appreciate you specifying Israeli hawks in this post. I think it is important that we not consider people who live in Israel and the Palestinian Territories as two or three "blobs" of undifferentiated people. Everybody does this, myself included. It would be really good if we could self-correct this tendency. In this context, when I generalise I run the risk of naming a whole lot of people as 'the enemy' who actually might be quite pleased to live in peace.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 5
    As at 2019, the Democracy Index places Israel at no.28 in the world. There are only 22 countries rated as "full democracies".

    The USA is not one of them (it ranks at 25, only 3 spots above Israel).

    I would argue Israel is not doing all that badly in the scheme of things. Where it scores badly on the index is in the 'civil liberties' category.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.

    Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.

    No. Israel exists in the real world of the surrounding nations. It's not in Scandinavia or Asia. This is still holding Israel to a standard not applied to its neighbours. We'll not agree on this. Would Tutu would have Israeli citizens live in a Palestine ruled by people who have an history of hatred toward Jews? Yes apparently.

    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    But nobody, on this thread, that I can see, has expressed an opinion about whether the other countries in the region are goodies or baddies. If someone was simultaneously condemning Israel while praising Egypt, then yes, that would be double-standards, but in the context of this thread, it's just putting words into people's mouths.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 5
    For the last few years the game has been to recast what someone says in support of Palestinian interests or critical of Israel as being anti-Semitic by reference to one of the IHRA examples of possible anti-semitism. This becomes an A is B, C is B, therefore A is C exercise.

    As in:

    1. Some anti-Semites use "Israel" or "Zionist" as code for "Jews".
    2. You just said you are opposed to Zionism
    3. You must mean you hate Jews.

    It's always "can I find a way to frame what you said as coming under one of the examples?"

    I notice one poster is now putting Palestine in scare quotes as if it's invalid. What's that meant to imply?
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.

    Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.

    No. Israel exists in the real world of the surrounding nations. It's not in Scandinavia or Asia. This is still holding Israel to a standard not applied to its neighbours. We'll not agree on this. Would Tutu would have Israeli citizens live in a Palestine ruled by people who have an history of hatred toward Jews? Yes apparently.

    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    But nobody, on this thread, that I can see, has expressed an opinion about whether the other countries in the region are goodies or baddies. If someone was simultaneously condemning Israel while praising Egypt, then yes, that would be double-standards, but in the context of this thread, it's just putting words into people's mouths.

    Slight correction: I'm pretty sure I've described the current Egyptian and Saudi regimes in less than flattering terms in the course of this thread, and with good reason.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Orpheo As at 2019, the Democracy Index places Israel at no.28 in the world. There are only 22 countries rated as "full democracies".

    Of course, much will depend on the criteria employed by a particular index. In Israel's case, for example, how are the Palestinian territories factored into the equation? Are they regarded as Bantustans or separate states?
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited January 5
    orfeo wrote: »
    As at 2019, the Democracy Index places Israel at no.28 in the world. There are only 22 countries rated as "full democracies".

    The USA is not one of them (it ranks at 25, only 3 spots above Israel).

    I would argue Israel is not doing all that badly in the scheme of things. Where it scores badly on the index is in the 'civil liberties' category.

    I think it depends on whether 'Israel', for the purpose of the survey, is considered to include the occupied territories or not. If they are part of Israel, then Israel is blatantly not democratic. If they aren't, then Israel has no business building settlements there.

    (This is what I find bizarre about the settlements. AIUI most ordinary Israeli citizens don't want them, and intellectually ISTM they cause the Israeli government's negotiating position to fail under its own terms.)

    [Apologies, just realised @Kwesi made the same point.]
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Palestine is included separately in the index, with a rank of 117. Possibly that answers both of your questions.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 5
    So, rather than murder illegal Jewish colonists in the West Bank and fire mortars from Gaza and other futile gestures of impotent rage that get them and their babies killed, what should Palestinians be doing? Or rather rather what can the civilized world do to reduce the impulse to do that? If anything? What is it doing? What investment? Whatever happened to third way economics? Or is it actually happening as best it possibly can? Uphill against climate change.

    I more than suspect that this is the best of all possible worlds. So what can we bleeding heart do-gooders actually achieve, apart from whinging and eschewing Marks & Spencer? I bought a Palestinian made keffiyeh five years ago... but we just HAD to shop at M&S for Xmas food shopping, sorry!
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited January 5
    Martin54 wrote: »
    So, rather than murder illegal Jewish colonists in the West Bank and fire mortars from Gaza and other futile gestures of impotent rage that get them and their babies killed, what should Palestinians be doing? Or rather rather what can the civilized world do to reduce the impulse to do that? If anything? What is it doing? What investment? Whatever happened to third way economics? Or is it actually happening as best it possibly can? Uphill against climate change.

    I more than suspect that this is the best of all possible worlds. So what can we bleeding heart do-gooders actually achieve, apart from whinging and eschewing Marks & Spencer? I bought a Palestinian made keffiyeh five years ago... but we just HAD to shop at M&S for Xmas food shopping, sorry!

    Concerted support of the BDS movement might allow Palestinians to see an alternative to violence. But of course BDS gets labelled anti-semitic by apologists for Likud too.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    For the last few years the game has been to recast what someone says in support of Palestinian interests or critical of Israel as being anti-Semitic by reference to one of the IHRA examples of possible anti-semitism. This becomes an A is B, C is B, therefore A is C exercise.

    As in:

    1. Some anti-Semites use "Israel" or "Zionist" as code for "Jews".
    2. You just said you are opposed to Zionism
    3. You must mean you hate Jews.

    It's always "can I find a way to frame what you said as coming under one of the examples?"

    I notice one poster is now putting Palestine in scare quotes as if it's invalid. What's that meant to imply?

    Its kind of not helpful, huh. Mind you, I thought NP had a point when he said that anti-semitism was on the increase in Europe and America, and that it goes hand in hand with right-wing politics. Its something to bear in mind I think - and kind of understandable too that Jews would be on a hair trigger. After all, they are at the centre of just about every nutbag theory there is.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I don't know about Melbourne, but here the strongest anti-semitic voices have been on the extreme left. Back in the day, it was those who wrote, edited and sold Direct Action, Socialist Newspaper 20cents (their cry trying to sell their rag near the ticket barriers at the underground stations in the city). More recently, it was the Greens forming the local council in what was then the Marrickville Council - they thought it was their duty to apply their thoughts on foreign policy rather than attend to municipal affairs.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    I don't know about Melbourne, but here the strongest anti-semitic voices have been on the extreme left. Back in the day, it was those who wrote, edited and sold Direct Action, Socialist Newspaper 20cents (their cry trying to sell their rag near the ticket barriers at the underground stations in the city). More recently, it was the Greens forming the local council in what was then the Marrickville Council - they thought it was their duty to apply their thoughts on foreign policy rather than attend to municipal affairs.

    In what way were they anti-semitic?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    My point is that it is so so so easy for us in The West to give The Israelis advice ... *as*if* we have "been there" in their situation for decades ...
    I grew up while the IRA were carrying out a bombing campaign on mainland Britain.

    Moreover, you don't refrain from telling the Palestinians what they need to do: you certainly haven't been in their situation for decades.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    So, rather than murder illegal Jewish colonists in the West Bank and fire mortars from Gaza and other futile gestures of impotent rage that get them and their babies killed, what should Palestinians be doing? Or rather rather what can the civilized world do to reduce the impulse to do that? If anything? What is it doing? What investment? Whatever happened to third way economics? Or is it actually happening as best it possibly can? Uphill against climate change.

    I more than suspect that this is the best of all possible worlds. So what can we bleeding heart do-gooders actually achieve, apart from whinging and eschewing Marks & Spencer? I bought a Palestinian made keffiyeh five years ago... but we just HAD to shop at M&S for Xmas food shopping, sorry!

    Concerted support of the BDS movement might allow Palestinians to see an alternative to violence. But of course BDS gets labelled anti-semitic by apologists for Likud too.

    Aye, and no western legislature will pursue that, not because of the nonsense of Jew hatred, but because it's not and never will be in their interests.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »

    Those of us who live safely comfortably in The West don't benefit from the privilege of having people in neighboring counties lobbing mortar shells at us and our children ... year after year after year ...

    And some of us recognize the old old chant, "JUDEN 'RAUS ... !!!" when we hear it ...

    Umm--the rocket fire is not coming from at least two neighboring countries, Eygpt and Jordan. I can't think of the last time Saudi Arabia fired anything into Israel proper. Rather, the rocket fire is coming from radicals in the Gaza Strip or Lebanon or Syria. Saddam Hussein fired a few rockets during our incursion into Iraq while he was in power.

    BTW, when my son did leave Tel Aviv after his year in Palestine, the airport did come under rocket fire about an hour after his plane took off--from where, I cannot recall, but that was close enough for me.

    My point is that it is so so so easy for us in The West to give The Israelis advice ... *as*if* we have "been there" in their situation for decades ...

    And my last point is the fact that my son had left Ben Gurion airport just an hour before it came under rocket fire was close enough for me. Think of it, the radicals were setting up the launchers as he was in the airport. It still sends chills down my back when I think about it.

    On the other hand, don't forget when Israel retaliates for such attacks, they are vicious. Their air force developed the tactic of "double-tap" which means when they launch a rocket at a targetted individual they will wait a few minutes until the Palestinian first responders are on site and they launch a second rocket to take out them.

    This is to say nothing about the times the Israelis will bulldoze Palestinian houses if they suspect a member of the family had participated in an attack on Israel,
  • Collective punishment and the targeting of medical personnel are war crimes, in case anyone is unsure.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Oh, please, the range of a heavy mortar is about 7,000m. (4 miles US) While the range of Palestinian rockets can be anywhere from 10 km (6.3 miles US) to 40 km (25 miles US). A mortar is no more than a rocket-powered grenade; whereas the Palestinian rockets can carry quite a bit of high explosives.

    Guess which weapon I would prefer to use.

    BTW, here is a graph showing what can be hit with a rocket from Gaza
  • orfeo wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    And correcting you. The UN created Israel.

    Well no, that's not entirely correct either. The UN proposed a kind of 2-State arrangement (which, when I was reading about it, oddly reminded me of what's happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina), but wasn't in a position to implement it. The Arab population wasn't happy with the proposal, the British who were actually in control decided not to implement the proposal, and then the Jewish population who were in favour of the proposal decided to implement it unilaterally.

    So while the UN might have been behind the idea, they didn't play a part in taking practical steps to implement the idea.

    The UN voted on "partition" ... November 29, 1947 ...

    And? Isn't that what I just said?

    Your response leads to the impression that the Jewish people are more responsible for the situation.
    orfeo wrote: »

    So while the UN might have been behind the idea, they didn't play a part in taking practical steps to implement the idea.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »

    Those of us who live safely comfortably in The West don't benefit from the privilege of having people in neighboring counties lobbing mortar shells at us and our children ... year after year after year ...

    And some of us recognize the old old chant, "JUDEN 'RAUS ... !!!" when we hear it ...

    Umm--the rocket fire is not coming from at least two neighboring countries, Eygpt and Jordan. I can't think of the last time Saudi Arabia fired anything into Israel proper. Rather, the rocket fire is coming from radicals in the Gaza Strip or Lebanon or Syria. Saddam Hussein fired a few rockets during our incursion into Iraq while he was in power.

    BTW, when my son did leave Tel Aviv after his year in Palestine, the airport did come under rocket fire about an hour after his plane took off--from where, I cannot recall, but that was close enough for me.

    My point is that it is so so so easy for us in The West to give The Israelis advice ... *as*if* we have "been there" in their situation for decades ...

    And my last point is the fact that my son had left Ben Gurion airport just an hour before it came under rocket fire was close enough for me. Think of it, the radicals were setting up the launchers as he was in the airport. It still sends chills down my back when I think about it.

    On the other hand, don't forget when Israel retaliates for such attacks, they are vicious. Their air force developed the tactic of "double-tap" which means when they launch a rocket at a targetted individual they will wait a few minutes until the Palestinian first responders are on site and they launch a second rocket to take out them.

    This is to say nothing about the times the Israelis will bulldoze Palestinian houses if they suspect a member of the family had participated in an attack on Israel,
    What information do you have about "double tap" Israeli responses to rocket attacks or other? Didn't find other than one 2015 link about it. Not corroborated.

    It has been reported to have multiple bombs set in the same area for some attacks. The reports I've seen have been car, hidden or suicide bombers.

    Collective punishment is indeed a war crime. As is torture. As is deliberate targetting of non-military targets, e.g., by drones. The rules were effectively re-written in the 20th century and then the re-justified after 2001. I don't think anyone cares much about war crimes any more. Some countries and leaders don't care much about truth and fact either.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Collective punishment and the targeting of medical personnel are war crimes, in case anyone is unsure.

    No, no, we only object because we're anti-Semites...
  • I don't think anyone cares much about war crimes any more.

    Speak for yourself. If there has been a guiding principle of left-liberal foreign policy over the last 75 years it's that international law must mean more than victors' justice, that crimes against humanity can never be justified. I think the reason centrists and the right attribute criticism of Israel to anti-semitism (and criticism of the US to anti-Americanism, and...) is that they can't conceive of an international system based on more than just who is on which "side" (something the tankie left has a problem with too).
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Desmond Tutu is wrong and expressed antiSemitism if that's what he said. You cannot hold Israel to a standard not held to the surrounding nations, Arabs, Palestinians.

    Yes you can. Israel doesn't claim to be one of the surrounding nations. It claims to be a liberal democracy. Therefore it is asking to be held to the same standards as other liberal democracies.

    No. Israel exists in the real world of the surrounding nations. It's not in Scandinavia or Asia. This is still holding Israel to a standard not applied to its neighbours. We'll not agree on this. Would Tutu would have Israeli citizens live in a Palestine ruled by people who have an history of hatred toward Jews? Yes apparently.

    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    Which is bullshit.

    No ... It is lived reality for Israelis for now several decades ...
  • orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)
  • orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    The people willing to defend the indefensible regarding it. If people kept popping up playing apologist for South African Apartheid, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Saudi actions in Yemen, Sri Lankan treatment of Tamils, Myanmarese genocide against the Rohingya, or Australian treatment of the first Australians I guarantee you people would get pretty damn angry. But no, it's Israel that some people have a blindspot about so that's what generates the heat.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    I think it best to ask the question as to what are the necessary features of a liberal democracy in judging whether a state is one or not. IMO for various and differing reasons the states of the Middle East do not qualify. The closest was probably the Lebanon, but that has become less the case. The problem for Israel in this regard is that it's impossible to have a democracy, which is based on individual rights, and to privilege a specific ethnic (or any other) group. It is difficult to think of a liberal democracy which is not multi-ethnic. The irony of Zionism is that it is a product of nineteenth century romanticism which bred the notion of ethnically-based nationalism that led to fascism. Liberal democracies, by contrast, emerged from the values of individualism and accompanying pluralism evident in Britain and France.

    No ...
    Jewish attachment to -- identification with -- The Land of Israel long pre-dates the 19th century ... See: The Torah, The Prophets, The Writings ...

    In fact The People of Israel have had that special relationship to The Land of Israel dating back to The Patriarchs, ca. 1800 BCE ...

    It is true that there have been various invasions and occupations of The Land of Israel during the long centuries, sometimes experiences of domination by neighboring peoples and states as well as forced Exile and dispersions ...
    But during all of that time -- about 3,800 years -- The People of Israel never ceded so much as one square meter of their Homeland -- not to the Egyptians or the Syrians or the Babylonians or the Persians or the Greeks or the Romans or any Arab peoples or the Crusaders or the Ottomans or the League of Nations or the British ... or anyone ...
  • orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    The people willing to defend the indefensible regarding it. If people kept popping up playing apologist for South African Apartheid, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Saudi actions in Yemen, Sri Lankan treatment of Tamils, Myanmarese genocide against the Rohingya, or Australian treatment of the first Australians I guarantee you people would get pretty damn angry. But no, it's Israel that some people have a blindspot about so that's what generates the heat.

    Ah ... Except ...
    "Apples" are not "Oranges" ...
  • edited January 5
    I don't think anyone cares much about war crimes any more.

    Speak for yourself. If there has been a guiding principle of left-liberal foreign policy over the last 75 years it's that international law must mean more than victors' justice, that crimes against humanity can never be justified. I think the reason centrists and the right attribute criticism of Israel to anti-semitism (and criticism of the US to anti-Americanism, and...) is that they can't conceive of an international system based on more than just who is on which "side" (something the tankie left has a problem with too).

    I wasn't speaking for myself. I was considering the torture done to people in the post 2001 wars in the mid-east, the drone attacks, the murders/assassinations, the capture of people to be sent to third countries for torture and murder. That sort of thing. It's the powerful countries which can get away with it that don't care.

    I disagree with your other characterisation that because it is Israel that there is a blind spot. It's because it is Israel that a higher standard is continually applied. Further, unlike the other conflicts and mistreatment situations you list
    South African Apartheid, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Saudi actions in Yemen, Sri Lankan treatment of Tamils, Myanmarese genocide against the Rohingya, or Australian treatment of the first Australians
    none of the persecuted have been repeatedly offered negotiated peace, land, governance, and turned it down. None of the others have prosecuted terror campaigns for decades. the closest I can think of is Ireland's war of independence against the UK and ongoing problems until the Good Friday agreement. Finally has to be willingness to stop violence and find some middle ground which they can live with. The Palestinian leadership has continually failed the Palestinians by never following through on agreements they almost agree to, egged on by various dictatorships in the region. The situation does not do well with more than surface comparison to other situations among and between nations (I'm using the term "nation" to mean a people. Not all nations are countries).
  • Not familiar with the Tamil Tigers, then? Or Umkhonto we Sizwe?

    In any case I don't understand how daring to fight against your oppressors means you don't deserve to be free of them. The only peace offered to the Palestinians has been as the second class citizens of a nominally self-governing Bantustan.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    Its behaviour.
  • Not familiar with the Tamil Tigers, then? Or Umkhonto we Sizwe?

    In any case I don't understand how daring to fight against your oppressors means you don't deserve to be free of them. The only peace offered to the Palestinians has been as the second class citizens of a nominally self-governing Bantustan.

    Ummm ...

    "The only peace offered to the Israelis has been as second-class citizens in a PA-Hamas controlled state ..."
  • mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    Its behaviour.

    The Israelis should just roll over and be ruled by the PA and Hamas and Hezbollah ... ???
    It's not going to happen ...
    It's a non-starter ...
    Again, The State of Israel (which IS "Jewish") is not going to negotiate itself out of existence ... 1948 and 1967 and 1973 should be proof enough of that ...

    Never again will *they* quietly meekly pack a suitcase and report ti the train station to be transported *somewhere*else* ...

    (And no, neither are The Tibetans going to cede tibet, nor will The Kurds give up interest in self government nor will Native Americans/First Nations just *shrug* and abandon their treaty rights in The USA and Canada ...)
  • Not familiar with the Tamil Tigers, then? Or Umkhonto we Sizwe?

    In any case I don't understand how daring to fight against your oppressors means you don't deserve to be free of them. The only peace offered to the Palestinians has been as the second class citizens of a nominally self-governing Bantustan.

    Ummm ...

    "The only peace offered to the Israelis has been as second-class citizens in a PA-Hamas controlled state ..."

    The occupied aren't in a position to offer peace to the occupiers, so that's a nonsensical comparison.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    Its behaviour.

    The Israelis should just roll over and be ruled by the PA and Hamas and Hezbollah ... ???
    It's not going to happen ...
    It's a non-starter ...
    Again, The State of Israel (which IS "Jewish") is not going to negotiate itself out of existence ... 1948 and 1967 and 1973 should be proof enough of that ...

    Never again will *they* quietly meekly pack a suitcase and report ti the train station to be transported *somewhere*else* ...

    (And no, neither are The Tibetans going to cede tibet, nor will The Kurds give up interest in self government nor will Native Americans/First Nations just *shrug* and abandon their treaty rights in The USA and Canada ...)

    But the Palestinians are expected to just shrug and put up with being exiles or second clasd citizens on their own land?
  • Not familiar with the Tamil Tigers, then? Or Umkhonto we Sizwe?

    In any case I don't understand how daring to fight against your oppressors means you don't deserve to be free of them. The only peace offered to the Palestinians has been as the second class citizens of a nominally self-governing Bantustan.

    That's emotional and/or inappropriate. South Africa had a majority population controlled by a minority. Israel and Palestine are two nations, one of which is a country. The other has continually and repeatedly almost agreed to a 2 state arrangement, which was the original plan, and then backs out. It doesn't matter that the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah or anyone else thinks if they can get a better deal by continuing the conflict and terrorism. They can't.

    They need to do what Finland did with Russia between 1941 and 1944, and accommodate to a greater power, though in the case of Finland, know fully that that no other country will bail them out. Finland gave 11% of their territory, 30% of their economy, and $300million in 1944 dollars to Russia so they could exist. If the external sponsorship of terrorism was stopped, Palestinians would probably have agreed to some territories, less than they wanted, more than Israel wanted to give, and likely not had to pay reparations like the Finns did. If the Finns had not agreed to Russian imposition of a settlement, the country would eventually have ceased to exist. That's where Palestine is, except for the external funding of it by other countries, for their own agendas, again noting that the PLO nearly destroyed Jordan while sponsoring terror from it and directly to it.
  • Not familiar with the Tamil Tigers, then? Or Umkhonto we Sizwe?

    In any case I don't understand how daring to fight against your oppressors means you don't deserve to be free of them. The only peace offered to the Palestinians has been as the second class citizens of a nominally self-governing Bantustan.

    Ummm ...

    "The only peace offered to the Israelis has been as second-class citizens in a PA-Hamas controlled state ..."

    The occupied aren't in a position to offer peace to the occupiers, so that's a nonsensical comparison.

    Well ...
    The Palestinian record on taking up opportunities for genuine peace ... haven't been very good, have they ...

    But, no ... the Israelis aren't going to agree to confine themselves to a couple of neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and a small area of West Jerusalem ...
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I was considering the torture done to people in the post 2001 wars in the mid-east, the drone attacks, the murders/assassinations, the capture of people to be sent to third countries for torture and murder. That sort of thing. It's the powerful countries which can get away with it that don't care.
    Firstly, that's whataboutery.
    Secondly, this is the first I've heard of the idea that the campaign to get Israel out of Palestine movement has insufficient overlap with the Stop the War coalition.
    Further, unlike the other conflicts and mistreatment situations you list
    South African Apartheid, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Saudi actions in Yemen, Sri Lankan treatment of Tamils, Myanmarese genocide against the Rohingya, or Australian treatment of the first Australians
    none of the persecuted have been repeatedly offered negotiated peace, land, governance, and turned it down. None of the others have prosecuted terror campaigns for decades. the closest I can think of is Ireland's war of independence against the UK and ongoing problems until the Good Friday agreement. Finally has to be willingness to stop violence and find some middle ground which they can live with. The Palestinian leadership has continually failed the Palestinians by never following through on agreements they almost agree to, egged on by various dictatorships in the region.
    The Israeli right assassinated Yitzhak Rabin for negotiating a peace treaty. Netanyahu, the current Israeli Prime Minister, led rallies that called for Rabin's death even after being warned that it was inflammatory by the Israeli secret service. Claiming that the Palestinian leadership has let the Palestinians down by not wanting peace is a piece of gaslighting. The peace offers made by the leaderships of Netanhayu and Sharon to Fatah have been laughable. They discredit Fatah for taking part in them, and then blame Fatah for the Palestinian disillusion.

    To compare the situation with that in Northern Ireland: if the British government had maintained its position that it wasn't going to negotiate until the IRA and all other republican terrorists had renounced violence, there would never have been a peace accord. It's not as if Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness were nice people.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 5
    orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    The people willing to defend the indefensible regarding it. If people kept popping up playing apologist for South African Apartheid, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Saudi actions in Yemen, Sri Lankan treatment of Tamils, Myanmarese genocide against the Rohingya, or Australian treatment of the first Australians I guarantee you people would get pretty damn angry. But no, it's Israel that some people have a blindspot about so that's what generates the heat.

    You're right @Arethosemyfeet. And @Fr Teilhard's Christian Zionism is insanely wrong. I can say that. As I was, I've been there. I was there for 30 years. Israel could do no wrong. And worse. South Africa was Israel too... by Anglo-Israelism (and Dutch).

    But being right changes nothing. As it does in Australia. Not to mention the unmentioned U.S.A. And not just for Native Americans.

    There are no jubilees in capitalism.

    Only South Africa could be changed. None of the others can. Not Burma, China, anywhere else.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    The people willing to defend the indefensible regarding it. If people kept popping up playing apologist for South African Apartheid, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Saudi actions in Yemen, Sri Lankan treatment of Tamils, Myanmarese genocide against the Rohingya, or Australian treatment of the first Australians I guarantee you people would get pretty damn angry. But no, it's Israel that some people have a blindspot about so that's what generates the heat.

    You're right @Arethosemyfeet. And @Fr Teilhard's Christian Zionism is insanely wrong. I can say that. As I was, I've been there. I was there for 30 years. Israel could do no wrong. And worse. South Africa was Israel too... by Anglo-Israelism (and Dutch).

    But being right changes nothing. As it does in Australia. Not to mention the unmentioned U.S.A. And not just for Native Americans.

    There are no jubilees in capitalism.

    Only South Africa could be changed. None of the others can. Not Burma, China, anywhere else.

    Maybe you're right. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, because you might very well be wrong.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited January 5
    mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    Its behaviour.

    The Israelis should just roll over and be ruled by the PA and Hamas and Hezbollah ... ???
    It's not going to happen ...

    This, children, is called black-or-white thinking, or false dichotomy. There is also a huge dollop of straw man lurking in these few words, and more than a smattering of non sequitur. Read, mark, and inwardly digest.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Your response leads to the impression that the Jewish people are more responsible for the situation.

    Your reading of my response needs to involve successfully parsing that multiple things happened in sequence, and that you lifting one sentence out of the description that I gave is useless.

    The UN supported a 2-State arrangement. The Jewish population went ahead with implementing partition after the British, who were supposedly in charge at the time, said no they wouldn't be doing it.

    If you seriously cannot understand how both of these things can be true at once, then God help you.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    It's not The State of Israel that gets my juices boiling. It's you.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Fr Teilhard. Jewish attachment to -- identification with -- The Land of Israel long pre-dates the 19th century ... See: The Torah, The Prophets, The Writings ...

    In fact The People of Israel have had that special relationship to The Land of Israel dating back to The Patriarchs, ca. 1800 BCE ...

    As I understand it, Zionism does not base its ideology on biblical foundations, regarding itself as secular, addressing Jews as an ethnic rather than religious community, which is why for secular Jews Zionism has filled a void left by loss of belief. Your reference to the Patriarchs is problematic for Zionists because they do not wish to claim, as you seem to suggest, that their territorial title rests on a donation by God. Furthermore, reference to the patriarchs is also problematic because Ishmael, the son of Abraham through Hagar, is regarded as the father of the Arabs (Genesis 21: 17-18). In biblical terms, therefore, the Palestinians have territorial claims to challenge those of the Israelis, involving a common ancestor, Abraham, and the direct intervention of a common deity. In any event, as far as I'm aware, the international community does not recognise the authority of a territorial claim based on ancient legends granting title.
  • Collective punishment and the targeting of medical personnel are war crimes, in case anyone is unsure.

    double tap is particularly loathesome.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    The people willing to defend the indefensible regarding it. If people kept popping up playing apologist for South African Apartheid, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Saudi actions in Yemen, Sri Lankan treatment of Tamils, Myanmarese genocide against the Rohingya, or Australian treatment of the first Australians I guarantee you people would get pretty damn angry. But no, it's Israel that some people have a blindspot about so that's what generates the heat.

    You're right @Arethosemyfeet. And @Fr Teilhard's Christian Zionism is insanely wrong. I can say that. As I was, I've been there. I was there for 30 years. Israel could do no wrong. And worse. South Africa was Israel too... by Anglo-Israelism (and Dutch).

    But being right changes nothing. As it does in Australia. Not to mention the unmentioned U.S.A. And not just for Native Americans.

    There are no jubilees in capitalism.

    Only South Africa could be changed. None of the others can. Not Burma, China, anywhere else.

    Maybe you're right. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, because you might very well be wrong.

    How @Arethosemyfeet? Seriously? The whole world (except Israel and Taiwan... and Thatcher) turned on SA, despite the Cold War. It's in nobody's geopolitical interest to dismantle Israel. Apart from Iran. Nothing, no one can touch Burma let alone China. Impunity will continue to work for Israel as it does everyone else. Just about everyone else on the Asian landmass. Who isn't using it? One way and another. There are no full democracies in all of Asia. (It will continue to work for the neo-fascist Trumpist Republicans in the US, paralysing Biden, as there's no way Georgia will swing to two Democrat senators. Can you believe that the US has only ever had 10 black senators?)

    And we (and who's we?) should try what?
  • I don't think anyone cares much about war crimes any more.

    Speak for yourself. If there has been a guiding principle of left-liberal foreign policy over the last 75 years it's that international law must mean more than victors' justice, that crimes against humanity can never be justified. I think the reason centrists and the right attribute criticism of Israel to anti-semitism (and criticism of the US to anti-Americanism, and...) is that they can't conceive of an international system based on more than just who is on which "side" (something the tankie left has a problem with too).

    Can you give me an idea of who holds to left-liberal foreign policy as you describe it? Is it something arising out of decisions of international tribunals? Is it a position held by the EU? Is it a position held by organisations like MSF and other NGOs?

    What is the tankie left? I haven't heard that expression.

    I feel like I am a centrist on the ME, for what its worth, but others may put me on the right. I can conceive of an international system based on more than just who is on who's side. But I don't think such a system will work at the present moment, and I'm not sure how we can ever get to a situation where it will. I suspect it will require a series of cataclysmic events, such as those which preceded moves to establish a unified Europe.

    In the present moment internationally, what matters is power. We live in a transactional world, not a principled one.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    A double standard where Israel is held to a higher standard is by definition holding Jews to a higher standard than everyone else. Which is anti-Semitic.

    It is not. The idea that the Israeli government is by definition "Jews" is just so much nonsense.

    I mean, we've apparently established that "Jews" = Klinghoffer who wasn't even an Israeli citizen, never mind a member of the Israeli government.

    It's deeply ironic that you would insist on "Jews" being a synonym for the Israeli government, given that Jewish people quite reasonably objected to the way that, thanks to the Gospel of John (and a loss of cultural understanding), the actions of the authorities in Jesus' time were attributed to "the Jews". And yet here you are, trying to claim that somehow anything adverse to the nation-state of Israel is 'by definition' something adverse to "Jews".

    This is just complete rubbish. I might add that as a citizen of my nation's capital, I am sick to death of my city being equated with a couple of hundred politicians who swan in here from time to time and don't actually live here, so my reaction to your assertion is nothing to do with anything Jewish or Semitic or whatever. It's tiresome in whatever form it arises.

    But it does seem to arise surprisingly often as an attempt to claim that the actions of the Israeli government are beyond question. And it makes no sense whatsoever, not least because different Israeli governments at different times have pursued quite different policies. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for pursuing certain policies, so how are you going to parse that? Is it by definition the Jews killing the Jews for acting against the perceived interests of the Jews?

    The nature of the State of Israel does not mean that you can just slap together the political entity, the ethnic identity and the religious community and act as if they're all synonyms for each other.

    Again, you unwittingly underline the point with which you so vigorously disagree ...

    (What IS it about The State of Israel -- the majority of whose citizens are Jewish -- that so gets your juices boiling ... ???)

    Its behaviour.

    The Israelis should just roll over and be ruled by the PA and Hamas and Hezbollah ... ???
    It's not going to happen ...
    It's a non-starter ...
    Again, The State of Israel (which IS "Jewish") is not going to negotiate itself out of existence ... 1948 and 1967 and 1973 should be proof enough of that ...

    Never again will *they* quietly meekly pack a suitcase and report ti the train station to be transported *somewhere*else* ...

    (And no, neither are The Tibetans going to cede tibet, nor will The Kurds give up interest in self government nor will Native Americans/First Nations just *shrug* and abandon their treaty rights in The USA and Canada ...)

    You keep repeating yourself.

    I don't think any of us are saying Israel should negotiate itself out of existence. Rather that it should reach some sort of reproachment with the Palestinians.

    BTW you say Israel has claims to the land all the way back to the Patriarchs. Previously, I showed that the ancestors of the Palestinians were already there. And, funny enough, they were able to co-exist.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited January 6
    The whole ancestry thing is such bunk, no matter who is using it. There are so many cases in the world where research uncovers that the supposed 'ancestors' of a group claiming ancient connection just don't have the right genetics, and the (ugh) purity of races is never anything like reality.

    Recently it's been determined that Stonehenge was erected by dark-skinned people, pale Europeans not actually existing in the slow shuffle of genetics at the time. Every race or nation you currently see before you will not exist in that form in a couple of millennia, no matter what. Every. Single. One.

    I'm all for fighting against racial discrimination, but trying to claim who belongs where over the course of thousands of years is just utterly pernicious.

    If modern Jewish people wish to have a country, okay, but the basis of that argument is not that ancient Jewish people had a country when it's highly likely that thorough testing would not be able to draw a neat, straight biological line between the 2 groups. I bet that a genetic analysis would have 'Jews' and 'Palestinians' frequently discovering they come from the same stock as each other, and other times discovering that if we insisted on placing people in the location of their ancestors they ought to be deported to somewhere else in Eurasia or northern Africa.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    I was considering the torture done to people in the post 2001 wars in the mid-east, the drone attacks, the murders/assassinations, the capture of people to be sent to third countries for torture and murder. That sort of thing. It's the powerful countries which can get away with it that don't care.
    Firstly, that's whataboutery.
    Secondly, this is the first I've heard of the idea that the campaign to get Israel out of Palestine movement has insufficient overlap with the Stop the War coalition.
    Further, unlike the other conflicts and mistreatment situations you list
    South African Apartheid, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Saudi actions in Yemen, Sri Lankan treatment of Tamils, Myanmarese genocide against the Rohingya, or Australian treatment of the first Australians
    none of the persecuted have been repeatedly offered negotiated peace, land, governance, and turned it down. None of the others have prosecuted terror campaigns for decades. the closest I can think of is Ireland's war of independence against the UK and ongoing problems until the Good Friday agreement. Finally has to be willingness to stop violence and find some middle ground which they can live with. The Palestinian leadership has continually failed the Palestinians by never following through on agreements they almost agree to, egged on by various dictatorships in the region.
    The Israeli right assassinated Yitzhak Rabin for negotiating a peace treaty. Netanyahu, the current Israeli Prime Minister, led rallies that called for Rabin's death even after being warned that it was inflammatory by the Israeli secret service. Claiming that the Palestinian leadership has let the Palestinians down by not wanting peace is a piece of gaslighting. The peace offers made by the leaderships of Netanhayu and Sharon to Fatah have been laughable. They discredit Fatah for taking part in them, and then blame Fatah for the Palestinian disillusion.

    To compare the situation with that in Northern Ireland: if the British government had maintained its position that it wasn't going to negotiate until the IRA and all other republican terrorists had renounced violence, there would never have been a peace accord. It's not as if Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness were nice people.

    "President" Yasir Arafat (of The PA) was a huge fan of Saddam Hussein ...

    After the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait, Arafat made a point of giving Saddam a biiiiig public embrace ...

    No, Palestinian leaders have time and time and time again missed opportunities for genuine peace ...
    So now their leading leaders are ... Hamas ... and their chief ally is Iranian-backed Hezbollah ...
  • orfeo wrote: »
    The whole ancestry thing is such bunk, no matter who is using it. There are so many cases in the world where research uncovers that the supposed 'ancestors' of a group claiming ancient connection just don't have the right genetics, and the (ugh) purity of races is never anything like reality.

    Recently it's been determined that Stonehenge was erected by dark-skinned people, pale Europeans not actually existing in the slow shuffle of genetics at the time. Every race or nation you currently see before you will not exist in that form in a couple of millennia, no matter what. Every. Single. One.

    I'm all for fighting against racial discrimination, but trying to claim who belongs where over the course of thousands of years is just utterly pernicious.

    If modern Jewish people wish to have a country, okay, but the basis of that argument is not that ancient Jewish people had a country when it's highly likely that thorough testing would not be able to draw a neat, straight biological line between the 2 groups. I bet that a genetic analysis would have 'Jews' and 'Palestinians' frequently discovering they come from the same stock as each other, and other times discovering that if we insisted on placing people in the location of their ancestors they ought to be deported to somewhere else in Eurasia or northern Africa.

    WHOA ...
    Are you really wanting to get into the "genetics" arguments about who is or is not a REAL "Jew" ... ???
    Are you going to propose a "blood quantum" formula ... ???
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Collective punishment and the targeting of medical personnel are war crimes, in case anyone is unsure.

    double tap is particularly loathesome.

    Yes ... The terror guys use it a lot ...
Sign In or Register to comment.