Israel and Palestine Again: Are we all hopeless and have given up?

24567

Comments

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    I may be wrong but I believe that the UN asked them to
  • Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    I may be wrong but I believe that the UN asked them to

    No, not in Kosovo. The UN got involved in subsequent peacekeeping, but the initial bombing of Serbia was done under NATO auspices alone, as Russia and China wouldn't give approval in the UNSC.
  • This Guardian long read is thought provoking and sketches hopeful, if not likely, possibilities for the future.
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/may/18/a-jewish-case-for-palestinian-refugee-return
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited May 2021
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    I may be wrong but I believe that the UN asked them to

    No you're right. But the UN wouldn't have asked if NATO hadn't asked them to. Blair got that right. NATO will never do that with regard to Israel. As in ever.
  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    Praying @Galilit 😢
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited May 2021
    Dear God. How can righteousness even aspire to prevail anywhere outside the Nordics, Ireland, NZ & Canada?! The 1%?
  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    Ireland isn't much of an example to hold up to anyone.

    Some Canadian shipmates seem to think that Canada has a lot to apologise for.

    There is no heaven on earth.

    As for Israel/Palestine, both have some level of democracy. Change will come when enough of both electorates vote for it.



  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate

    Russ wrote: »
    As for Israel/Palestine, both have some level of democracy. Change will come when enough of both electorates vote for it.

    True
    In the immortal words of US President Clinton: "You can't want it more than they [themselves] do"
    But Israel has had 4 General Elections in the past 2 years and not been able to cobble together a stable coalition. The last election was in March 2021 and the second person tasked with forming a government out of those results has just failed to collect enough Members to have a majority. (61 out of 120 seats.)
    As for Palestine the last elections were supposed to be in 2005. General elections have been formally postponed time and time again since then. (2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2019 and May 2021)

  • Query, and perhaps this is my wishful thinking, but do the younger generations want it more than the older?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    A lot of younger people (20's, 30's) are apathetic politically. They've essentially known only one PM all their lives and seen the security/peace situation only worsening as well as an almost continuous run of politicians involved in sex, money, and corruption scandals. The rest are extremists. So there's a sort of polarisation in that they either don't care or they care excessively.
    On the other hand, there's an absolutely enormous number of vegans who all seem to have dear little dogs. Mostly those little white ones, pomeranians, and pekingese...
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel
  • Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    And yet most of its member countries support or condone Israel's crimes against humanity.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited May 2021
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    NATO will not touch the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it relies too much on Arabic Oil.

    But to the point of who started this latest conflict, it falls completely on Israel's lap. It goes way back to the partition of Palestine in 1947 when Jerusalem was divided into ethnic quarters. Many Palestinians were forced to give up their homes in West Jerusalem but a few resisted. Now the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered eight of those families be evicted. This caused an Arabic protest, then when the Israeli military fired on the worshipers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Hamas began rocketing Israeli territory.

    I have to ask, who is being terroristic in the current conflict? So far two Israeli civilians have been killed while over two hundred Palestinians have been killed--60 of them children.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    Israel has better weapons. Its what enabled them to survive and expand in the past, so that Israel's survival became viable. But further expansion is a barrier to peace. It is time to choke the supply. I think that some Israelis believe that total victory over the Palestinians is in reach.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours

    How about that! There's nothing to stop the first prerequisite. Apart from America.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    NATO will not touch the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it relies too much on Arabic Oil.

    But to the point of who started this latest conflict, it falls completely on Israel's lap. It goes way back to the partition of Palestine in 1947 when Jerusalem was divided into ethnic quarters. Many Palestinians were forced to give up their homes in West Jerusalem but a few resisted. Now the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered eight of those families be evicted. This caused an Arabic protest, then when the Israeli military fired on the worshipers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Hamas began rocketing Israeli territory.

    I have to ask, who is being terroristic in the current conflict? So far two Israeli civilians have been killed while over two hundred Palestinians have been killed--60 of them children.

    Ah, that's legitimate state terror collateral damage. The Nazis rightly called the RAF 1000 bomber raids terror raids. That ratio is normal in the Israeli doctrine of disproportionate response.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    I found this long read moving, yesterday. A Jewish writer looks at the consequences of the Nakhba, and the ways Israel applies law assymetrically.
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/may/18/a-jewish-case-for-palestinian-refugee-return
    While elsewhere finding complaints about Hamas attacking during Shavuot, it has not been much commented that the house evictions were timed for Nakhba Day.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Israel has better weapons. Its what enabled them to survive and expand in the past, so that Israel's survival became viable. But further expansion is a barrier to peace. It is time to choke the supply. I think that some Israelis believe that total victory over the Palestinians is in reach.

    That time can never come for either fantasy. I can't find the link, but there was a superb Palestinian spokesman from Ramallah on the BBC last night calling for non-violent economic action - a strike. If Palestinians and Israeli Arabs stopped working for non-Arab Israeli employers that's got to hurt. WE would have to contribute of course. He was asked, of course, "What about Hamas' violence?", which he fielded perfectly, better than Sinn Fein ever did, as Dr. King would have done.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    love to see it if someone can find it.

    I heard talk of strike action on the news channel I had on in the background today.
  • News this morning, reported in various media, here in the Guardian* (link) that France has got involved:
    Egypt has urged a brokered end to the fighting between Israel and militants in Gaza, and France has called for a UN security council resolution on the violence, as international pressure for a ceasefire intensifies.

    The US has so far stopped shot of demanding an end to the violence, confining its public efforts to urging that attacks are scaled back. Washington has repeatedly blocked efforts before the UN security council to draft joint statements calling for the fighting to end. The latest US rejection came at a security council meeting late on Tuesday that again ended without a statement, as airstrikes and rocket fire continued into the night.

    * linking to the Guardian as I know that there are US and Australian editions, and it's not behind a paywall, so pretty much universally accessible.

    <tangent> @Penny S Arethosemyfeet linked that article yesterday. I know, because I came here to do the same and realised he'd got there before me.</tangent>
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    Oops, sorry I missed that.
    Probably because at the time I had not read it on paper, which I did later, and knew I would and then forgot the link.
    Stupid, but I keep thinking about the cats and the dogs left behind. Which is probably why it was included.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours

    How about that! There's nothing to stop the first prerequisite. Apart from America.

    The biggest obstacle to a Palestine state is Hamas. Israel needs to feel that Palestione, as a country on it's border, would not be hostile to Israel
  • Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours

    How about that! There's nothing to stop the first prerequisite. Apart from America.

    The biggest obstacle to a Palestine state is Hamas. Israel needs to feel that Palestione, as a country on it's border, would not be hostile to Israel

    No. The biggest obstacle to the recognition of Palestine is Israel. Its settlements in the West Bank. Its annexation of East Jerusalem. Its government being beholden to a far right who won't even acknowledge the Palestinian national identity and wants a solely Jewish state "from the river to the sea".

    Stop victim blaming.
  • The right wing identify with the aggressor, and blame the victim. Don't ask me to explain that.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours

    How about that! There's nothing to stop the first prerequisite. Apart from America.

    The biggest obstacle to a Palestine state is Hamas. Israel needs to feel that Palestione, as a country on it's border, would not be hostile to Israel

    No. The biggest obstacle to the recognition of Palestine is Israel. Its settlements in the West Bank. Its annexation of East Jerusalem. Its government being beholden to a far right who won't even acknowledge the Palestinian national identity and wants a solely Jewish state "from the river to the sea".

    Stop victim blaming.

    It isn't. Unless you take a simplistic view, and isolate specific sequences of events in time. The biggest obstacle is that the two sides living in the area don't want to do it. (there are more tribes than these two, but let's not get complicated)
  • Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours

    How about that! There's nothing to stop the first prerequisite. Apart from America.

    The biggest obstacle to a Palestine state is Hamas. Israel needs to feel that Palestione, as a country on it's border, would not be hostile to Israel

    No. The biggest obstacle to the recognition of Palestine is Israel. Its settlements in the West Bank. Its annexation of East Jerusalem. Its government being beholden to a far right who won't even acknowledge the Palestinian national identity and wants a solely Jewish state "from the river to the sea".

    Stop victim blaming.

    It isn't. Unless you take a simplistic view, and isolate specific sequences of events in time. The biggest obstacle is that the two sides living in the area don't want to do it. (there are more tribes than these two, but let's not get complicated)

    "Both sides" is a simplistic view.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours

    How about that! There's nothing to stop the first prerequisite. Apart from America.

    The biggest obstacle to a Palestine state is Hamas. Israel needs to feel that Palestione, as a country on it's border, would not be hostile to Israel

    No. The biggest obstacle to the recognition of Palestine is Israel. Its settlements in the West Bank. Its annexation of East Jerusalem. Its government being beholden to a far right who won't even acknowledge the Palestinian national identity and wants a solely Jewish state "from the river to the sea".

    Stop victim blaming.

    When you have terrorists firing rockets at you, you are victims.
  • Terrorists = Israel.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    The right wing identify with the aggressor, and blame the victim. Don't ask me to explain that.

    Might makes right.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours

    How about that! There's nothing to stop the first prerequisite. Apart from America.

    The biggest obstacle to a Palestine state is Hamas. Israel needs to feel that Palestione, as a country on it's border, would not be hostile to Israel

    No. The biggest obstacle to the recognition of Palestine is Israel. Its settlements in the West Bank. Its annexation of East Jerusalem. Its government being beholden to a far right who won't even acknowledge the Palestinian national identity and wants a solely Jewish state "from the river to the sea".

    Stop victim blaming.

    It isn't. Unless you take a simplistic view, and isolate specific sequences of events in time. The biggest obstacle is that the two sides living in the area don't want to do it. (there are more tribes than these two, but let's not get complicated)

    "Both sides" is a simplistic view.

    Which I didn't say did I? That's all you. You did the simple "stop victim blaming", and I indicated "there are more tribes that these two".

    @quetzalcoatl's response is similarly simple.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours

    How about that! There's nothing to stop the first prerequisite. Apart from America.

    The biggest obstacle to a Palestine state is Hamas. Israel needs to feel that Palestione, as a country on it's border, would not be hostile to Israel

    No. The biggest obstacle to the recognition of Palestine is Israel. Its settlements in the West Bank. Its annexation of East Jerusalem. Its government being beholden to a far right who won't even acknowledge the Palestinian national identity and wants a solely Jewish state "from the river to the sea".

    Stop victim blaming.

    When you have terrorists firing rockets at you, you are victims.

    And when you have a powerful modern army apparently willing to kill entire families if they think they might get one militant blowing your house up, what are you then?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Terrorists = Israel.

    I don't recall Israel being the terrorists in Munich 1972
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    NATO cannot get involved with this because neither party is a member of that alliance. Even then, when Turkey landed troops on Cyprus, NATO did not get involved because both countries were in the alliance.

    So why did NATO get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Simple, the European members of NATO agreed that the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia were threatening the stability of Europe.

    Exactly, so NATO can do what the hell it wants, as per Kosovo, (thanks @Arethosemyfeet ). And not. And it will never act against Israel. Any more than it would against Turkey... usually.

    I can understand why it wouldn't support terrorists who were attacking Israel

    Interesting that it would never join them in their counter-attacks. Maybe Palestine should join NATO?

    They would need to be a country for starters with a policy of living in peace with their neighbours

    How about that! There's nothing to stop the first prerequisite. Apart from America.

    The biggest obstacle to a Palestine state is Hamas. Israel needs to feel that Palestione, as a country on it's border, would not be hostile to Israel

    No. The biggest obstacle to the recognition of Palestine is Israel. Its settlements in the West Bank. Its annexation of East Jerusalem. Its government being beholden to a far right who won't even acknowledge the Palestinian national identity and wants a solely Jewish state "from the river to the sea".

    Stop victim blaming.

    When you have terrorists firing rockets at you, you are victims.

    And when you have a powerful modern army apparently willing to kill entire families if they think they might get one militant blowing your house up, what are you then?

    They are the people defending themselves
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    A right apparently Palestinians do not have. What should they do, @Telford? Sit back and take it until the West Bank is swiss-cheesed into non-existence and Gaza turns into a concentration camp?

    I'm no fan of Hamas and think their current strategy is wrong and will lead to disaster anyway but I haven't been herded into refugee status, brutalised by an occupying army and had all my children blown to bits so I'm not entirely convinced how well my pacifism would survive.

    Have you actually seen the collateral figures? How many children is it acceptable to explode to get one militant, in your view?

  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    Seems to me that the distinction between combatants and civilians is a valid one. And that it is wrong to be reckless of civilian casualties in attempting to hit military targets.

    But that's not as evil as deliberately targeting civilians.
  • This is partly for me, but trying to put the whole Israel-Palestine situation into historical context.

    According to this timeline from AlJazeera (link)† this situation originated in 1799 with Napoleon's Siege of Acre, when Napoleon decided to re-establish the Jews in Jerusalem. Shame about the people already living there. Jews started moving into the area. That group was augmented over the years. Skipping on just over a century, historic lands of Palestine were granted to Jews by France and Britain with their carving up on the Middle East with the Sykes Picot line in 1916, followed by the establishment of Israel by Western states over the next three decades.

    In 1922 the League of Nations agreed the British Mandate for Palestine, which included the Jewish homelands in the area. The area remained under British military rule, with continuing Jewish immigration, and Arab dissent. The British put down the Three Years Arab Revolt between 1936 and 1939. This was alongside, what were called Zionist group attacks on the Arabs in Palestine - bombing Arab sites, ethnic cleansing of areas. In 1947 the UN had adopted the Palestinian Partition plan, the Palestinians voted against it. 1948 the State of Israel was established and is immediately recognised by the US and Russia. In 1949 the UN signs an agreement allowing the return of Palestinian refugees - over 80% of the Palestinians were expelled from Palestine in the years from 1947-1949 and around 80% of Palestinian land was seized by Zionists. A refugee organisation was founded to support the Palestinian refugees in 1949.

    In 1950 there were 150,000 Palestinians in Israel granted citizenship. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) was established in 1950 in response to the continuing massacre of Arab villages and take over of the land. By 1967, Israel had occupied all the traditional Palestinian lands including the West Bank and Gaza strip. Those borders, the ones Israel had taken by 1967 are the borders that the UN and other countries would like to see Israel return to Palestine but are still being encroached upon.

    In 1974 the PLO were recognised as the sole legitimate official representative of Palestine, For the next twenty years they negotiated, with various bodies brokering those negotiations to agree statehood and various peace settlements culminating with the Oslo* peace agreement signed by Palestine and Israel.

    Various other treaties continued through to 2000, but in 2002, Israel reoccupied the West Bank and started building their wall around Palestine. Yasser Arafat died in 2004, and war broke out again in the region. In 2008, Israel attacks the Gaza strip and again in 2014.

    Remind us, @Telford who are the aggressors in this area?

    † This wasn't the only source I used to put this together, when I didn't know something I looked further
    * One of the things that got me interested in this area was seeing the play Oslo about the first and second negotiations. One of my other sources for information is the play programme which gave a lot of historical background to the talks.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Seems to me that the distinction between combatants and civilians is a valid one. And that it is wrong to be reckless of civilian casualties in attempting to hit military targets.

    But that's not as evil as deliberately targeting civilians.

    A great many adult Jewish Israelis are reservists. Are they military or civilian targets? There's also an element of hitting what you can reach. If Hamas could reach Israeli air bases and blow up the planes doing the bombing I suspect they would. Equally I'm sure if someone gave them more accurate weapons they'd gladly pick more precise targets.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Telford wrote: »
    Terrorists = Israel.

    I don't recall Israel being the terrorists in Munich 1972

    I don't recall Palestine being terrorists when they were invaded, conquered, overrun, exiled by the desperate survivors of worse facilitated by those who failed the latter again.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    Russ wrote: »
    Seems to me that the distinction between combatants and civilians is a valid one. And that it is wrong to be reckless of civilian casualties in attempting to hit military targets.

    But that's not as evil as deliberately targeting civilians.

    What's the end result of throwing around a lot of high explosive in one of the most densely populated areas in the world?
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    Telford, have you read abut Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach - in what way were they not terrorists?
  • This is partly for me, but trying to put the whole Israel-Palestine situation into historical context.

    According to this timeline from AlJazeera (link)† this situation originated in 1799 with Napoleon's Siege of Acre, when Napoleon decided to re-establish the Jews in Jerusalem. Shame about the people already living there. Jews started moving into the area. That group was augmented over the years. Skipping on just over a century, historic lands of Palestine were granted to Jews by France and Britain with their carving up on the Middle East with the Sykes Picot line in 1916, followed by the establishment of Israel by Western states over the next three decades.

    In 1922 the League of Nations agreed the British Mandate for Palestine, which included the Jewish homelands in the area. The area remained under British military rule, with continuing Jewish immigration, and Arab dissent. The British put down the Three Years Arab Revolt between 1936 and 1939. This was alongside, what were called Zionist group attacks on the Arabs in Palestine - bombing Arab sites, ethnic cleansing of areas. In 1947 the UN had adopted the Palestinian Partition plan, the Palestinians voted against it. 1948 the State of Israel was established and is immediately recognised by the US and Russia. In 1949 the UN signs an agreement allowing the return of Palestinian refugees - over 80% of the Palestinians were expelled from Palestine in the years from 1947-1949 and around 80% of Palestinian land was seized by Zionists. A refugee organisation was founded to support the Palestinian refugees in 1949.

    In 1950 there were 150,000 Palestinians in Israel granted citizenship. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) was established in 1950 in response to the continuing massacre of Arab villages and take over of the land. By 1967, Israel had occupied all the traditional Palestinian lands including the West Bank and Gaza strip. Those borders, the ones Israel had taken by 1967 are the borders that the UN and other countries would like to see Israel return to Palestine but are still being encroached upon.

    In 1974 the PLO were recognised as the sole legitimate official representative of Palestine, For the next twenty years they negotiated, with various bodies brokering those negotiations to agree statehood and various peace settlements culminating with the Oslo* peace agreement signed by Palestine and Israel.

    Various other treaties continued through to 2000, but in 2002, Israel reoccupied the West Bank and started building their wall around Palestine. Yasser Arafat died in 2004, and war broke out again in the region. In 2008, Israel attacks the Gaza strip and again in 2014.

    Remind us, @Telford who are the aggressors in this area?

    † This wasn't the only source I used to put this together, when I didn't know something I looked further
    * One of the things that got me interested in this area was seeing the play Oslo about the first and second negotiations. One of my other sources for information is the play programme which gave a lot of historical background to the talks.

    Except the PLO were ignored at various times after recognition, Hamas and the PLO were in direct conflict.... Understanding the history is like untangling a ball of yarn a cat has played with, with some strands actually passing through others.

    So much revanchism, so much revenge.
  • This is partly for me, but trying to put the whole Israel-Palestine situation into historical context.

    According to this timeline from AlJazeera (link)† this situation originated in 1799 with Napoleon's Siege of Acre, when Napoleon decided to re-establish the Jews in Jerusalem. Shame about the people already living there. Jews started moving into the area. That group was augmented over the years. Skipping on just over a century, historic lands of Palestine were granted to Jews by France and Britain with their carving up on the Middle East with the Sykes Picot line in 1916, followed by the establishment of Israel by Western states over the next three decades.

    In 1922 the League of Nations agreed the British Mandate for Palestine, which included the Jewish homelands in the area. The area remained under British military rule, with continuing Jewish immigration, and Arab dissent. The British put down the Three Years Arab Revolt between 1936 and 1939. This was alongside, what were called Zionist group attacks on the Arabs in Palestine - bombing Arab sites, ethnic cleansing of areas. In 1947 the UN had adopted the Palestinian Partition plan, the Palestinians voted against it. 1948 the State of Israel was established and is immediately recognised by the US and Russia. In 1949 the UN signs an agreement allowing the return of Palestinian refugees - over 80% of the Palestinians were expelled from Palestine in the years from 1947-1949 and around 80% of Palestinian land was seized by Zionists. A refugee organisation was founded to support the Palestinian refugees in 1949.

    In 1950 there were 150,000 Palestinians in Israel granted citizenship. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) was established in 1950 in response to the continuing massacre of Arab villages and take over of the land. By 1967, Israel had occupied all the traditional Palestinian lands including the West Bank and Gaza strip. Those borders, the ones Israel had taken by 1967 are the borders that the UN and other countries would like to see Israel return to Palestine but are still being encroached upon.

    In 1974 the PLO were recognised as the sole legitimate official representative of Palestine, For the next twenty years they negotiated, with various bodies brokering those negotiations to agree statehood and various peace settlements culminating with the Oslo* peace agreement signed by Palestine and Israel.

    Various other treaties continued through to 2000, but in 2002, Israel reoccupied the West Bank and started building their wall around Palestine. Yasser Arafat died in 2004, and war broke out again in the region. In 2008, Israel attacks the Gaza strip and again in 2014.

    Remind us, @Telford who are the aggressors in this area?

    † This wasn't the only source I used to put this together, when I didn't know something I looked further
    * One of the things that got me interested in this area was seeing the play Oslo about the first and second negotiations. One of my other sources for information is the play programme which gave a lot of historical background to the talks.

    Hmm, and I'm reading the thread with interest but don't want to get too involved and not sure what I think, but this strikes me as exactly the sort of thing where what one thinks comes down to where one starts the timeline.

    For a start, if one begins with Napoleon re-establishing the Jews in Jerusalem it's going to read a bit differently to a timeline that starts with the Jews 'leaving' Jerusalem...

    as you say, 'shame about the people already living there'
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    According to this source (link) the myth of the Jewish Israelis is that:
    They experienced two exiles: after the destruction of the first temple, in the 6th century BC, and of the second temple, in 70 AD.

    However according to the article, both those exiles have been cast into doubt by archaeology in the 1980s, because when Moses led the Jewish people out of Egypt to the Promised Land those lands were ruled by the Egyptians. Secondly, the Romans never exiled any peoples from their lands along the Eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. The Jews remained in Jerusalem; it's just that many converted to Christianity and Islam through the centuries.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    According to this source (link) the myth of the Jewish Israelis is that:
    They experienced two exiles: after the destruction of the first temple, in the 6th century BC, and of the second temple, in 70 AD.

    However according to the article, both those exiles have been cast into doubt by archaeology in the 1980s, because when Moses led the Jewish people out of Egypt to the Promised Land those lands were ruled by the Egyptians. Secondly, the Romans never exiled any peoples from their lands along the Eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. The Jews remained in Jerusalem; it's just that many converted to Christianity and Islam through the centuries.

    Having never previously heard of the author Schlomo Sand, I have to say that 10 minutes of googling certainly makes him sound interesting....

    As a historian by training, I'm well aware of bias, and the need to contextualise what you're reading, but you get a head start with someone whose books include The Invention of the Jewish People; The Invention of the Land of Israel; and How I Stopped Being a Jew.

    Doesn't remotely mean they're wrong, but a reasonable person might think they were coming from a direction.
  • There's a definite position, but even accepting the second diaspora, as Wikipedia does (link) there are discrepancies between the accounts of how many Jews were still in the area in the 7th century - 10-15% or majority Jewish. And 7th century is when the Ottoman Empire conquered the area, ruling until the British took over, as above.

    I can also find this pdf article from Robert Seltzer of University of New York (link) who is also referring to converts to Judaism remaining vigorous until the 12th century, which also ties in with the rather more readable article above.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    There's a definite position, but even accepting the second diaspora, as Wikipedia does (link) there are discrepancies between the accounts of how many Jews were still in the area in the 7th century - 10-15% or majority Jewish. And 7th century is when the Ottoman Empire conquered the area, ruling until the British took over, as above.

    I can also find this pdf article from Robert Seltzer of University of New York (link) who is also referring to converts to Judaism remaining vigorous until the 12th century, which also ties in with the rather more readable article above.

    Interesting, I'll have a read. On the bold bit that's ignoring presumably the Crusader rule (of Jerusalem) of 1099-1187 and 1229-1244, and while it was otherwise under Muslim control, the Ottomans turned up in 1517.

Sign In or Register to comment.