Israeli navy boards irish Gaza-bound boats

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

Sure thing, the relevant part of the post where I discussed possible solutions was:

Ok thanks for that, On your point 2 though- Israel should not be a Jewish state, surely you see that if this was the case it would cease to exist within a generation or two if not sooner ?

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

Ok thanks for that, On your point 2 though- Israel should not be a Jewish state, surely you see that if this was the case it would cease to exist within a generation or two if not sooner ?

I believe that it is much more important to have a state which treats their citizens equally regardless of a religion than to have a Jewish monopoly on it's administration. It will always be a place of importance for the three Abrahamic religions, but there is absolutely no necessity for one to rule over another.

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

I believe that it is much more important to have a state which treats their citizens equally regardless of a religion than to have a Jewish monopoly on it's administration. It will always be a place of importance for the three Abrahamic religions, but there is absolutely no necessity for one to rule over another.

As a general principle , yes I agree with you , but Israel is sui generis is it not, and for valid historical reasons ?

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

As a general principle , yes I agree with you , but Israel is sui generis is it not, and for valid historical reasons ?

Yes, Israel is a unique situation but when you say 'historical' are you referring to its biblical 'history'?

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

Yes, Israel is a unique situation but when you say 'historical' are you referring to its biblical 'history'?

Not at all, or only in the sense that it was used by Christian countries as a justification for persecution over two millenia culminating in ''The Final Solution''.

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all, or only in the sense that it was used by Christian countries as a justification for persecution over two millenia culminating in ''The Final Solution''.

Sorry, you've lost me- what was used by Christian countries as a justification for persecution?

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

Sorry, you've lost me- what was used by Christian countries as a justification for persecution?

Christ killer, The Blood libel,protocols of the elders of zion , and all the s*it, but I don't want to sidetrack the discussion so in answer to your question, no I don't see the biblical justification for the state of Israel as important .

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

Christ killer, The Blood libel,protocols of the elders of zion , and all the s*it, but I don't want to sidetrack the discussion so in answer to your question, no I don't see the biblical justification for the state of Israel as important .

Ahhh ok, so you mean that anti-Semitism is justification for the State of Israel's existence? (if I'm taking you up wrong here, do correct me, cos I'm a bit lost). The question in regard to this is- why should the Palestinians be the ones burdened and punished for what essentially were the sins of Europe with the huge outpouring of anti-Semitism which culminated in the Holocaust? Also, is sending a certain number of Jews abroad really a solution? Anti-Semitism very much still exists after the establishment of Israel, so it did nothing to eliminate that. If we are to be so simplistic as to say that the solution to discrimination is to send those targeted elsewhere, then with this idea in mind, shouldn't the African-Americans have simply returned to the 'motherland' and 'home of their ancestors' in various African countries where their descendents were taken from? No, they didn't, because like the Jews they had integrated into society and come to see themselves as citizens of their country. Similarly, the answer to anti-Semitism isn't to hole themselves away elsewhere and destroy the lives of millions of Palestinians and expel them from the country, which only causes more hardship for a completely innocent population.

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

Ahhh ok, so you mean that anti-Semitism is justification for the State of Israel's existence? (if I'm taking you up wrong here, do correct me, cos I'm a bit lost). The question in regard to this is- why should the Palestinians be the ones burdened and punished for what essentially were the sins of Europe with the huge outpouring of anti-Semitism which culminated in the Holocaust? Also, is sending a certain number of Jews abroad really a solution? Anti-Semitism very much still exists after the establishment of Israel, so it did nothing to eliminate that. If we are to be so simplistic as to say that the solution to discrimination is to send those targeted elsewhere, then with this idea in mind, shouldn't the African-Americans have simply returned to the 'motherland' and 'home of their ancestors' in various African countries where their descendents were taken from? No, they didn't, because like the Jews they had integrated into society and come to see themselves as citizens of their country. Similarly, the answer to anti-Semitism isn't to hole themselves away elsewhere and destroy the lives of millions of Palestinians and expel them from the country, which only causes more hardship for a completely innocent population.

Ok, there is validity in everything you say Siuin, but we have to acccept the world as we find it . The fact of the matter is , no matter what the rights and wrongs of it Israel does exist and so where do we go from here ?

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

Ok, there is validity in everything you say Siuin, but we have to acccept the world as we find it . The fact of the matter is , no matter what the rights and wrongs of it Israel does exist and so where do we go from here ?

To the 3 points I gave you earlier

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

To the 3 points I gave you earlier

Ok, but we have to accept the situation as it is , much the same way that we had to accept the principle of consent in the Good Friday Agreement. That is the point I was making as regards Israel being sui generis, if it not a jewish state it will cease to exist in fairly short order.

Would you agree that that is a distinct possibility ?

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

Ok, but we have to accept the situation as it is , much the same way that we had to accept the principle of consent in the Good Friday Agreement. That is the point I was making as regards Israel being sui generis, if it not a jewish state it will cease to exist in fairly short order.

Would you agree that that is a distinct possibility ?

If the Jews believe that it is their religious right to the land, then I'm sure they will be just as strong in their faith that God will protect them

But seriously, that region of land which is now Israel has been conquered and resettled so many times in history, and has been the owned by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Ottomans. It's a constant cyclical cycle of conquest and settlement- so why should the Jewish state be any different? I know many Israelis who are enjoying a far superior quality of life in Europe and America, and indeed many more who WANT to come to the west. Israel is an anomaly in the Middle East, and if it is supposed to survive it should be able to do so without racist policies keeping it afloat.

The Israeli

What in the name of Christ are you talking about, dear?

Who is punishing whom?
Jews bought lands, whether to your liking or not. The Jews were more than 1/3 of the population on that land. The Brits needed to leave and leave the country to its habitants.
The world decided to establish two states.. In a place that no independant state had had existed for two thousand years.
Why did the Jews have less rights than the Palestinians?
In the first quarter of the 19th centure there were about 250000 people in the country. A querter of them christians and Jews. Between that time and the beginning of the Zionism the number of the arabs rose by 30%.
During the years 1870-1947 their number rose by 270%. The source for these numbers is the "Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine".
My source for that data is wikipedia.

The Palestinians didn't have more rights, especially when taking all the numbers into account.
Asking siuin how to solve the problem is like asking Eva Braun to make a positive movie about the Jews. Siuin isn't a Natzi of course, but she has a very strong anti Israeli opinion these days.

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

If the Jews believe that it is their religious right to the land, then I'm sure they will be just as strong in their faith that God will protect them

But seriously, that region of land which is now Israel has been conquered and resettled so many times in history, and has been the owned by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Ottomans. It's a constant cyclical cycle of conquest and settlement- so why should the Jewish state be any different? I know many Israelis who are enjoying a far superior quality of life in Europe and America, and indeed many more who WANT to come to the west. Israel is an anomaly in the Middle East, and if it is supposed to survive it should be able to do so without racist policies keeping it afloat.

But Siuin surely you can see why a Jewish state can be different, we cannot ignore history.They are in the Middle East and they are going to stay. In much the same way that until this country recognised and accepted that the Unionist community ( however they got here and however they got the land) were not going anywhere , until we accepted that fact progress could not be made.

We have to deal in what is rather than what should have been.

Nodin

The Israeli wrote: »

What in the name of Christ are you talking about, dear?

Who is punishing whom?
Jews bought lands, whether to your liking or not. .

And out of the 27 million Dunums that constituted the area, what percentage did they own by 1947?

The Israeli wrote: »

The Jews were more than 1/3 of the population on that land. The Brits needed to leave and leave the country to its habitants.
The world decided to establish two states.. In a place that no independant state had had existed for two thousand years.
Why did the Jews have less rights than the Palestinians?
In the first quarter of the 19th centure there were about 250000 people in the country. A querter of them christians and Jews. Between that time and the beginning of the Zionism the number of the arabs rose by 30%.
During the years 1870-1947 their number rose by 270%. The source for these numbers is the "Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine"..

Is there a problem with 'Arabs' having children now?

The Israeli

And how much had the Palestinians owned? Do you have the numbers?
Maybe the land belonged to the British mandate..

The first reason for the 270% rising number is emigration, of course.
Jews emigrated, arabs emigrated. All is good.
You say it's a myth, I know. Maybe later I will try to find the evidances.

Nodin

The Israeli wrote: »

And how much had the Palestinians own? Do you have the numbers?.

Of arable land (roughly) over 70%. Of all land its a higher percentage again. If you'd read the 'Anglo American inquiry' figures you wouldn't have to ask.

The Israeli wrote: »

...........The first reason for the 270% rising number is emigration, of course.
.

One of the reasons. The idea that Arab immigrants were the main reason for the rise has its roots in Kahanist propoganda. The story is that the improvident Arabs were drawn to the now productive area due to massive increases in agricultural production by zionist immigrants. However percentage of output from each community of the overall (as recorded by the Anglo American inquiry) roughly corresponded to percentage of land owned, the sole exception being the farming of citrus, which seems to be dominated by Jewish farmers at the time.

Siuin

The Israeli wrote: »

What in the name of Christ are you talking about, dear?

Who is punishing whom?
Jews bought lands, whether to your liking or not. The Jews were more than 1/3 of the population on that land. The Brits needed to leave and leave the country to its habitants.
The world decided to establish two states.. In a place that no independant state had had existed for two thousand years.
Why did the Jews have less rights than the Palestinians?
In the first quarter of the 19th centure there were about 250000 people in the country. A querter of them christians and Jews. Between that time and the beginning of the Zionism the number of the arabs rose by 30%.
During the years 1870-1947 their number rose by 270%. The source for these numbers is the "Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine".
My source for that data is wikipedia.

The Palestinians didn't have more rights, especially when taking all the numbers into account.
Asking siuin how to solve the problem is like asking Eva Braun to make a positive movie about the Jews. Siuin isn't a Natzi of course, but she has a very strong anti Israeli opinion these days.

When the British mandate withdrew from Palestine in 1946, the Jews constituted only 30% of the population. This was before the Zionists expelled the Palestinians from their land, obviously.
The Jews had less right than the Palestinians because they were being appropriated land by the British which the British did not have the right to give away. It was in complete contradiction to the will of the majority native population, and based on the absolutely absurd claim based on Biblical myth dating back thousands of years previously.
Coincidently, I studied the Anglo-American Inquiry on Palestine in University just last week Did you read the part where it gave recommendations on how the area of Palestine should be treated? Did you see where they recommended that only 100,000 extra refugees should be allowed into Palestine and that further immigration should be subject to conditions? Did you read the part where they said that under no circumstances should any one group, be they Jewish or Arab, claim exclusive rights over Palestine and that a Jewish state was completely out of the question?

Aaaaand you compare me to the girlfriend of a Nazi, and then say 'ooooh but I'm not calling her a Nazi!!':rolleyes: oh puh-lease! When are Israelis going to learn that being against the actions of the Israeli government is NOT anti-Semitism. What lazy argumentation.

marienbad wrote: »

But Siuin surely you can see why a Jewish state can be different, we cannot ignore history.They are in the Middle East and they are going to stay. In much the same way that until this country recognised and accepted that the Unionist community ( however they got here and however they got the land) were not going anywhere , until we accepted that fact progress could not be made.

We have to deal in what is rather than what should have been.

I don't see how a Jewish state should be any less dispensable than a non-Jewish one. Why are you so certain that they are going to stay in the Middle East? As recently as 1918 the Jews only constituted 10% of modern day Israel. A large Jewish population in the Middle East is a very recent phenomenon. The difference between the Jews and the Unionists is that the Unionists aren't getting billions of dollars worth of military aid to keep afloat- the state of Israel is on life support and without western backing, I find it very difficult to imagine that they could keep up. Perhaps if the likes of the US withdrew all the money they were pumping into the region, they would be more open to finally ceasing settlements in the West Bank and seriously looking at the possibility of a two state solution.

The Israeli

Nodin wrote: »

Of arable land (roughly) over 70%. Of all land its a higher percentage again. If you'd read the 'Anglo American inquiry' figures you wouldn't have to ask.



One of the reasons. The idea that Arab immigrants were the main reason for the rise has its roots in Kahanist propoganda. The story is that the improvident Arabs were drawn to the now productive area due to massive increases in agricultural production by zionist immigrants. However percentage of output from each community of the overall (as recorded by the Anglo American inquiry) roughly corresponded to percentage of land owned, the sole exception being the farming of citrus, which seems to be dominated by Jewish farmers at the time.

To every story, there are more sides, as I always figure out after reading here and at other sources later.
I don't know much about it (I took my data from wikipedia. I doubt that they belong to the illegal movement you mentioned). I will look into it in the next days and report.

Siuin

The Israeli wrote: »

To every story, there are more sides, as I always figure out after reading here and at other sources later.
I don't know much about it (I took my data from wikipedia. I doubt that they belong to the illegal movement you mentioned). I will look into it in the next days and report.

How about you read a proper history book and educate yourself before you decide to regurgitate unsubstantiated nonsense from wikipedia? You keep being forced to concede to various people on this forum for the simple fact that you yourself are not aware of the facts, all you know is an ideology.

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

When the British mandate withdrew from Palestine in 1946, the Jews constituted only 30% of the population. This was before the Zionists expelled the Palestinians from their land, obviously.
The Jews had less right than the Palestinians because they were being appropriated land by the British which the British did not have the right to give away. It was in complete contradiction to the will of the majority native population, and based on the absolutely absurd claim based on Biblical myth dating back thousands of years previously.
Coincidently, I studied the Anglo-American Inquiry on Palestine in University just last week Did you read the part where it gave recommendations on how the area of Palestine should be treated? Did you see where they recommended that only 100,000 extra refugees should be allowed into Palestine and that further immigration should be subject to conditions? Did you read the part where they said that under no circumstances should any one group, be they Jewish or Arab, claim exclusive rights over Palestine and that a Jewish state was completely out of the question?

Aaaaand you compare me to the girlfriend of a Nazi, and then say 'ooooh but I'm not calling her a Nazi!!':rolleyes: oh puh-lease! When are Israelis going to learn that being against the actions of the Israeli government is NOT anti-Semitism. What lazy argumentation.



I don't see how a Jewish state should be any less dispensable than a non-Jewish one. Why are you so certain that they are going to stay in the Middle East? As recently as 1918 the Jews only constituted 10% of modern day Israel. A large Jewish population in the Middle East is a very recent phenomenon. The difference between the Jews and the Unionists is that the Unionists aren't getting billions of dollars worth of military aid to keep afloat- the state of Israel is on life support and without western backing, I find it very difficult to imagine that they could keep up. Perhaps if the likes of the US withdrew all the money they were pumping into the region, they would be more open to finally ceasing settlements in the West Bank and seriously looking at the possibility of a two state solution.

On the contrary Siuin the comparision with N.Ireland is very apt and for somewhat similar reasons. The subvention from the UK exchequer over the history of N.Ireland has been massive and continues to this day. And one could argue it was for the same reason as the US subvention to Israel, that its neighbour refused to accept its right to exist.

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

On the contrary Siuin the comparision with N.Ireland is very apt and for somewhat similar reasons. The subvention from the UK exchequer over the history of N.Ireland has been massive and continues to this day. And one could argue it was for the same reason as the US subvention to Israel, that its neighbour refused to accept its right to exist.

That is because Northern Ireland is in the UK- it's only obvious that they would provide financial aid and assistance to part of their own territory- they're intrinsically linked. The US on the other hand has made a conscious decision to fund the military of Israel despite the fact that it is in no shape or form part of their territory, but a sovereign country in its own right.

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

That is because Northern Ireland is in the UK- it's only obvious that they would provide financial aid and assistance to part of their own territory- they're intrinsically linked. The US on the other hand has made a conscious decision to fund the military of Israel despite the fact that it is in no shape or form part of their territory, but a sovereign country in its own right.

Yeah, but so what ? A sovereign country can spend its money how it likes. We have no problem tapping in to the Irish American community and to various US developement funds , so what is the difference ?

The US also gives aid to Pakistan Egypt etc.

Wibbs

marienbad, one could easily argue both were invasions, plantations if you will on the native populations for political and imperial ends.

Now as it happens I support both the Unionist and the Israeli communities as they stand. However, if the Unionist community in the last 60 years had with the help of outside powers and against the wishes of both the native community and international law and opinion reduced the native population of this island to a tenth if not less of the current geographical demographic at the barrel of a bulldozer and tank, I'd be well pissed off and indeed ready to take up arms against them. I'd put good money even many Unionists would see my point in such a scenario.

While the comparisons to the plantations in this country and the Israel/Palestine situation are valid enough at times and bitterness on both sides remain to this day, the speed and boldness, nay hard neck of the Israeli position and action is of a magnitude greater*. Add in Unionists/Planters have been here a helluva lot longer that's saying something. Israel has promoted nothing less that geographical genocide on the peoples of that region. To deny this is to ignore history, logic and well... the actual maps over time.


*plus unlike the Israeli situation the planters have integrated a helluva lot more in this island. More than is immediately obvious. Look around at your mates and look to their surnames and you'll see quite a few Smiths and Jones etc. Not exactly "local" names. Never mind people like Wolfe Tone and his ilk who regardless of background sought an independent state or at least a state more for locals.

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah, but so what ? A sovereign country can spend its money how it likes. We have no problem tapping in to the Irish American community and to various US developement funds , so what is the difference ?

The US also gives aid to Pakistan Egypt etc.

But it's unfair propping up of a militaristic system which is using excessive force and killing thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians. In all fairness, Ireland is not getting loans from anyone to bomb a densely populated region into oblivion. It's their money, but they have a moral responsibility to how they know it is being spent. It's completely pointless to compare US aid to Israel to the likes of what it gives to Pakistan and Egypt- Pakistan received 9.83 USD per person in 2009, Egypt recieved 22.63 USD per person in 2009, and Israel? Israel received a whopping 336.25 USD per person in 2009 -- that's FIFTEEN times that of Egypt. In terms of proportionality, Israel is completely incomparable with other nations.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah, but so what ? A sovereign country can spend its money how it likes. We have no problem tapping in to the Irish American community and to various US developement funds , so what is the difference ?

The difference is that it now has a peace treaty with its neighbours and has been - for over 4 decades - engaged in colonial expansion outside its internationally recognised borders.

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

But it's unfair propping up of a militaristic system which is using excessive force and killing thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians. In all fairness, Ireland is not getting loans from anyone to bomb a densely populated region into oblivion. It's their money, but they have a moral responsibility to how they know it is being spent. It's completely pointless to compare US aid to Israel to the likes of what it gives to Pakistan and Egypt- Pakistan received 9.83 USD per person in 2009, Egypt recieved 22.63 USD per person in 2009, and Israel? Israel received a whopping 336.25 USD per person in 2009 -- that's FIFTEEN times that of Egypt. In terms of proportionality, Israel is completely incomparable with other nations.

Siuin, fairness has got nothing to do with it. I go back to my first point - if we are to get a solution the only place to start is the situation as we find it.

You are arguing from a moral perspective as you see it, but that is an unrealistic point of view and a view that if followed logically would lead to the inevitable demise of the state of Israel. Is that a fair summation ?

Israel is there and will remain so, acceptance of that (imho) is a prerequisite to any solution . Whether we agree with that or no is immaterial.

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

Siuin, fairness has got nothing to do with it. I go back to my first point - if we are to get a solution the only place to start is the situation as we find it.

You are arguing from a moral perspective as you see it, but that is an unrealistic point of view and a view that if followed logically would lead to the inevitable demise of the state of Israel. Is that a fair summation ?

Israel is there and will remain so, acceptance of that (imho) is a prerequisite to any solution . Whether we agree with that or no is immaterial.

God forbid morals would have any guiding role in the matter...!
Israel could continue to exist in conjunction with a separate Palestinian state if it actually stopped settlement building, dismantled the existing settlements in the West Bank and engaged in discussion with the Palestinians- I don't feel that this is unrealistic in the slightest.

You are completely assured that Israel is a fixed entity, yet the fact is that the borders of the Middle East were only drawn up in the last century and Israel has only been in existence for 63 years. There are absolutely no assurances regarding Israel's continued existence.

The Israeli

Siuin wrote: »

But it's unfair propping up of a militaristic system which is using excessive force and killing thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians. In all fairness, Ireland is not getting loans from anyone to bomb a densely populated region into oblivion. It's their money, but they have a moral responsibility to how they know it is being spent. It's completely pointless to compare US aid to Israel to the likes of what it gives to Pakistan and Egypt- Pakistan received 9.83 USD per person in 2009, Egypt recieved 22.63 USD per person in 2009, and Israel? Israel received a whopping 336.25 USD per person in 2009 -- that's FIFTEEN times that of Egypt. In terms of proportionality, Israel is completely incomparable with other nations.

As a military strategist, what is the importance of calculating money per person?
What, you see grandmas going to fight the war?
Give me an answer to that specific question, ok..

Maybe, the money should be calculated accordingly to the actual needs?
Lebanon, Iran, Gaza, West bank, Syria. Constant war readiness.


Also, please remind me who is egypt fighting with..
Are they figting against Hamas? against israel? against El quida? against its other neighbours?
Pakistan is having American troops fighting for it. you forgot that.

p.s. you aren't supposed to talk to me. You told that.

marienbad

Wibbs wrote: »

marienbad, one could easily argue both were invasions, plantations if you will on the native populations for political and imperial ends.

Now as it happens I support both the Unionist and the Israeli communities as they stand. However, if the Unionist community in the last 60 years had with the help of outside powers and against the wishes of both the native community and international law and opinion reduced the native population of this island to a tenth if not less of the current geographical demographic at the barrel of a bulldozer and tank, I'd be well pissed off and indeed ready to take up arms against them. I'd put good money even many Unionists would see my point in such a scenario.

While the comparisons to the plantations in this country and the Israel/Palestine situation are valid enough at times and bitterness on both sides remain to this day, the speed and boldness, nay hard neck of the Israeli position and action is of a magnitude greater*. Add in Unionists/Planters have been here a helluva lot longer that's saying something. Israel has promoted nothing less that geographical genocide on the peoples of that region. To deny this is to ignore history, logic and well... the actual maps over time.


*plus unlike the Israeli situation the planters have integrated a helluva lot more in this island. More than is immediately obvious. Look around at your mates and look to their surnames and you'll see quite a few Smiths and Jones etc. Not exactly "local" names. Never mind people like Wolfe Tone and his ilk who regardless of background sought an independent state or at least a state more for locals.

Wibbs I would not disagree with a lot of that, some I would disagree with vehemently .It is a snapshot of history taken in 2011. A snapshot taken in 48,67,73,82 would yield everchanging pictures. Same way with Ireland ( Sunningdale for slow learners springs to mind). One element I would not dispute is that The Palestinians have been the unwilling victims and/or pawns in every snapshot.

But without seeming crude , in the world of realpolitik, so what ? I know it probably political incorrect to say that straight out , but it is the truth , is it not ?

If a solution is to be found we must start with the position as we find it.

Siuin

The Israeli wrote: »

As a military strategist, what is the importance of calculating money per person?
What, you see grandmas going to fight the war?
Give me an answer to that specific question, ok..

Maybe, the money should be calculated accordingly to the actual needs?
Lebanon, Iran, Gaza, West bank, Syria. Constant war readiness.

Also, please remind me who is egypt fighting with..
Are they figting against Hamas? against israel? against El quida? against its other neighbours?
Pakistan is having American troops fighting for it. you forgot that.

p.s. you aren't supposed to talk to me. You told that.

One calculates money per person for the simple fact that a country with a larger population will obvious warrant a greater amount of money- I would have thought this was obvious, but apparently not for some of us.

The real question is- why is America supporting the actions of Israel at all? What's so special about Israel that they deserve billions of dollars from American tax payers? US foreign aid is usually given to countries which, incidentally, America is the reason they're in such an awful war torn state to begin with such as Afghanistan and Iraq. And yet Israel is number 2, and has been heavily reliant on American support since its establishment. It's time for Israel to start encompassing the democratic ideals of freedom and equality for ALL citizens (not just Jews) or else I really don't see why on earth the American administration should support such a country.

I won't talk to you by PM. If you make a statement here regarding POLITICS, I will address it.

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

God forbid morals would have any guiding role in the matter...!
Israel could continue to exist in conjunction with a separate Palestinian state if it actually stopped settlement building, dismantled the existing settlements in the West Bank and engaged in discussion with the Palestinians- I don't feel that this is unrealistic in the slightest.

You are completely assured that Israel is a fixed entity, yet the fact is that the borders of the Middle East were only drawn up in the last century and Israel has only been in existence for 63 years. There are absolutely no assurances regarding Israel's continued existence.

Please Siuin,don't think for a minute that I would not prefer if morals played a greater role in world affairs,but history has shown that the best one can hope for is a policy of ''benign self-interest''.

I am not assured that Israel is a fixed entity and I would say neither are the Israelis and that is probably why the conflict is so visceral . But I have asked you already do you think its survival is a good thing or a bad thing ?

Freddie59

marcsignal wrote: »

Actually, FYI, Adolf, after three months of talks with the Zionist Federation of Germany, wanted to sent them all to Palestine

Yes, his term for 'the showers'.:rolleyes:

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

Please Siuin,don't think for a minute that I would not prefer if morals played a greater role in world affairs,but history has shown that the best one can hope for is a policy of ''benign self-interest''.

I am not assured that Israel is a fixed entity and I would say neither are the Israelis and that is probably why the conflict is so visceral . But I have asked you already do you think its survival is a good thing or a bad thing ?

Well that's a rather cynical approach to take :P

Since the Israeli identity is as old as the state, indeed their position too is not guaranteed. I don't remember you actually asking me that, but in short; any country which promotes human rights is a 'good' thing. I think Israel has shown its potential to contribute a great deal to the world. However, should it continue in its current form, I do think that its presence will do anything but harm the interests of both the Palestinian people and themselves. I do hope Israel survives, but I also hope that it adopts the features of a truly democratic and egalitarian state, and allows the Palestinians to lead a dignified and independent existence.

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

Well that's a rather cynical approach to take :P

Since the Israeli identity is as old as the state, indeed their position too is not guaranteed. I don't remember you actually asking me that, but in short; any country which promotes human rights is a 'good' thing. I think Israel has shown its potential to contribute a great deal to the world. However, should it continue in its current form, I do think that its presence will do anything but harm the interests of both the Palestinian people and themselves. I do hope Israel survives, but I also hope that it adopts the features of a truly democratic and egalitarian state, and allows the Palestinians to lead a dignified and independent existence.

Yes , it is probably is cynical,but then I come from a country that elected Bertie three times, the fact that I never voted for him would indicate that I still believe in ''moral'' politics , but alas we live in hope.

Ok , you have answered my question, now may I assume you would hold the surrounding states to the same standards, including any potential Palestinian one ?

But if you do not recognise the uniqueness of the Israeli state as being a jewish state, what you are giving with one hand you are taking away with the other, would you accept that ?

Bye the way , in case you think I am asking you leading questions (which I am) feel free to ask any in return and I will answer , straight out.

Siuin

marienbad wrote: »

Yes , it is probably is cynical,but then I come from a country that elected Bertie three times, the fact that I never voted for him would indicate that I still believe in ''moral'' politics , but alas we live in hope.

Ok , you have answered my question, now may I assume you would hold the surrounding states to the same standards, including any potential Palestinian one ?

But if you do not recognise the uniqueness of the Israeli state as being a jewish state, what you are giving with one hand you are taking away with the other, would you accept that ?

Bye the way , in case you think I am asking you leading questions (which I am) feel free to ask any in return and I will answer , straight out.

Indeed, I would hope that a Palestinian state would also be democratic.

Why should anyone accept Israel as a Jewish state? Before it was given independence, commission after commission which was sent to Palestine repeatedly reiterated that one religion should not have exclusive rights to the land over another, and that it would only exacerbate hostilities. Its status as a Jewish state has allowed Israel to actively discriminate against other religious groups- it should be a state of PEOPLE not of one dogma.

Anyway, I have classes tomorrow and am heading to bed. Good luck with the political soul searching

marienbad

Siuin wrote: »

Indeed, I would hope that a Palestinian state would also be democratic.

Why should anyone accept Israel as a Jewish state? Before it was given independence, commission after commission which was sent to Palestine repeatedly reiterated that one religion should not have exclusive rights to the land over another, and that it would only exacerbate hostilities. Its status as a Jewish state has allowed Israel to actively discriminate against other religious groups- it should be a state of PEOPLE not of one dogma.

Anyway, I have classes tomorrow and am heading to bed. Good luck with the political soul searching

We should accept Israel as a jewish state and its right to exist for any number of reasons ,but let us stick to the primary one, it is a prerequisite for any meaningful solution ..

Whatever else one thinks there is no getting away from that , just as here in Ireland the principle of consent had to be excepted no matter how badly it stuck in some peoples throat.

Taking the moral approach as opposed to the pragmatic just leads further away from any solution.

Johro

'President Obama and his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, were reportedly caught in a candid moment expressing their exasperation with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu - with the French president referring to him as a "liar".
The remarks were part of what the American and French leaders believed to be a private chat after a news conference in Cannes last week, during the G20 economic conference. The pair were still wearing microphones, and some journalists who still had their headphones on for translation caught the remarks, which were first reported by the French photo agency Arret Sur Images.
A Reuters news agency reporter who was also present has since confirmed the exchange.
As the two leaders discussion turns to Israel and the Palestinians, Sarkozy is first to express his distaste for the conservative Israeli Prime Minister.
"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," the French president was heard to say.
In response, according to the account by Arret Sur Images, Mr. Obama sympathizes with Sarkozy's frustration, saying, "you're fed up, but I have to deal with him every day."
There is no immediate indication as to whether a recording of the private conversation exists.
Arret Sur says all the reporters present in Cannes who were privy to the exchange agreed not to publish details.
It is unclear why Arret Sur decided to go public with the details late on Monday, days after Mr. Obama returned to Washington, or whether they were among the French organizations which agreed to the alleged no-report pact at the time.
The White House, when asked about the exchange by CBS News, would not comment.
Both France and the U.S. are urging Israel and the Palestinians to relaunch negotiations on a final peace agreement.
The initial topic of discussion which led Sarkozy and Mr. Obama to their apparent Netanyahu-bashing was France's support of the Palestinian's bid for membership in the United Nations cultural agency, UNESCO.'


I'll just leave that there..

marienbad

Johro wrote: »

'President Obama and his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, were reportedly caught in a candid moment expressing their exasperation with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu - with the French president referring to him as a "liar".
The remarks were part of what the American and French leaders believed to be a private chat after a news conference in Cannes last week, during the G20 economic conference. The pair were still wearing microphones, and some journalists who still had their headphones on for translation caught the remarks, which were first reported by the French photo agency Arret Sur Images.
A Reuters news agency reporter who was also present has since confirmed the exchange.
As the two leaders discussion turns to Israel and the Palestinians, Sarkozy is first to express his distaste for the conservative Israeli Prime Minister.
"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," the French president was heard to say.
In response, according to the account by Arret Sur Images, Mr. Obama sympathizes with Sarkozy's frustration, saying, "you're fed up, but I have to deal with him every day."
There is no immediate indication as to whether a recording of the private conversation exists.
Arret Sur says all the reporters present in Cannes who were privy to the exchange agreed not to publish details.
It is unclear why Arret Sur decided to go public with the details late on Monday, days after Mr. Obama returned to Washington, or whether they were among the French organizations which agreed to the alleged no-report pact at the time.
The White House, when asked about the exchange by CBS News, would not comment.
Both France and the U.S. are urging Israel and the Palestinians to relaunch negotiations on a final peace agreement.
The initial topic of discussion which led Sarkozy and Mr. Obama to their apparent Netanyahu-bashing was France's support of the Palestinian's bid for membership in the United Nations cultural agency, UNESCO.'


I'll just leave that there..

Why ?? I would say if more microphones were left on we would hear much worse than this. Can you omagine what they are saying about Papendreou or Berlusconi ?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Johro wrote: »

I'll just leave that there..

For what reason?.

And what has it got to do with the thread title?.

HavingCrack

mowhawk wrote: »

Perhaps because Israel tries to paint itself as a civilized society. At least Burma etc, know what they are and are perceived to be by society and do not pretend to be otherwise.

So it's only acceptable to protest or criticise against 'democratic'/civilized states? I'm not saying protesting against Israeli actions is wrong but at least try to be consistent in criticism. Murder/ethnic cleansing/torture/genocide/rape etc are the same the world over. The sort of attitude you display is a bit 'fcuk the Burmese/Sudanese/Egyptians/Tibetans etc. sure, the government is a dictatorship so why bother kicking up a fuss about it'. It always comes across to me as saying the Palestinians are more important than anyone else even if this isn't what is intended.

Wibbs

marienbad wrote: »

But without seeming crude , in the world of realpolitik, so what ? I know it probably political incorrect to say that straight out , but it is the truth , is it not ?

So the end as we find it justifies the means, even if that means is oft abhorrent? And you feel this is justifiable, especially as it continues now as we speak? Nice. That just Godwined the thread nicely, with no mention of the Austrian corporal. The irony has just made Alanis Morrisette's head spin. Good fcuk. On so many levels.

If a solution is to be found we must start with the position as we find it.

And if we said this as a snapshot in 47, 67, 77, or today? Where does one draw the line in the sand of historical morality?

marcsignal

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes, his term for 'the showers'.:rolleyes:

read the link and educate yourself ffs :cool:

Johro

marienbad wrote: »

Why ?? I would say if more microphones were left on we would hear much worse than this. Can you omagine what they are saying about Papendreou or Berlusconi ?

I can. But we didn't hear that. We heard this.
I'm just putting it forward as an indication of the lack of esteem in which Netanyahu is held, for being an obstinate fool.

marienbad

Wibbs wrote: »

So the end as we find it justifies the means, even if that means is oft abhorrent? And you feel this is justifiable, especially as it continues now as we speak? Nice. That just Godwined the thread nicely, with no mention of the Austrian corporal. The irony has just made Alanis Morrisette's head spin. Good fcuk. On so many levels.

And if we said this as a snapshot in 47, 67, 77, or today? Where does one draw the line in the sand of historical morality?

I did'nt say that this is a view I agree with Wibbs, but it is the reality . Can you give me one example in modern history where this did not apply ?

The velvet divorce in Czechoslovakia is the only possible example I can think of and even that was an acceptance of reality on the ground. The breakup of Yugoslovakia is a more apt example where you had a murderous scramble for territory before the peacekeepers moved it.

Historical morality has nothing to do with it, it is all about positioning for the negotiations that inevitably must come. And sad to say the Palestinian people have been poorly led and represented at every possible juncture to get the best deal on offer.

It is not possible to start over. That is not a statement of right or wrong or a statement I agree or don't agree with- it just is.

Johro

HavingCrack wrote: »

So it's only acceptable to protest or criticise against 'democratic'/civilized states? I'm not saying protesting against Israeli actions is wrong but at least try to be consistent in criticism. Murder/ethnic cleansing/torture/genocide/rape etc are the same the world over. The sort of attitude you display is a bit 'fcuk the Burmese/Sudanese/Egyptians/Tibetans etc. sure, the government is a dictatorship so why bother kicking up a fuss about it'. It always comes across to me as saying the Palestinians are more important than anyone else even if this isn't what is intended.

This argument is so fucking typical of those that defend Israel's actions, this 'it's not just Israel you know' line. Yes. We know this. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not the only issue a lot of us feel strongly about, but it's the one discussed here. Simple as.
I would be just as vehement in my criticism of the Burmese leadership, Syria's Assad or the Chinese government, to name but a few.

Wibbs

marienbad wrote: »

I did'nt say that this is a view I agree with Wibbs, but it is the reality . Can you give me one example in modern history where this did not apply ?

I can't think of an example in modern history(and hard to think of one in history full stop) where the world stood by as landgrab to this degree was allowed, if not directly supported by some.

Historical morality has nothing to do with it, it is all about positioning for the negotiations that inevitably must come. And sad to say the Palestinian people have been poorly led and represented at every possible juncture to get the best deal on offer.

Oh I agree 100% on this score. Then again Israel has a habit of ignoring negotiations that don't go their way, while all the while claiming the high moral ground. Like a schoolyard bully using a weak kids own fists to beat him, all the while saying "stop hitting yourself".

It is not possible to start over. That is not a statement of right or wrong or a statement I agree or don't agree with- it just is.

TBH I can't see any end to this until Israel gets its way and drives the Palestinians into the sea. IMHO this attitude in Israel has gotten worse not better over time. I had/have Jewish mates who went to Israel back in the early 80's. Some stayed, some came back(too damn hot, missed home, the usual ) and their attitudes were a lot more conciliatory, less hardened than their own kids attitudes growing up in the place. It's also got more "religious" which is always a bloody worry. Ditto for the Arab side. In the 70's you heard feck all about Islamic fundamentalism attached to this stuff. Certainly not from such groups as the PLO. Khomeni was the kick off, with the whole Salman Rushdie affair really setting fire to the place. Religious fervour in the employ of political aims never ends well.

Johro wrote: »

I would be just as vehement in my criticism of the Burmese leadership, Syria's Assad or the Chinese government, to name but a few.

Ditto and Israel has more UN resolutions against it than all of them put together. Of course according to them the UN is a hot bed of that old chestnut "anti-semitism". The trump card that has (sadly) lost it's power in the face of too much BS coming from the very people leveling the charge.

beazee

Hi hello,
I've only read first 5 pages of the topic and it is not actually what i wanted to ask you. Hope one of you will be able to answer my questions.

Where is 'Saoirse' coming from?
From what photographs show MV Saoirse reg number is DL 8172 AC. And this in fact is registered number of 'The Challenger II' boat in Delaware Boat Register.
How come newspapers and radio write and talk about MV Saoirse when in fact it's US registered 'Challenger II'?


Irish Sea Fleet Register may be found here. And MV Saoirse found there is a different boat.

From what I heard in the radio they were carrying aid for Palestinians.
We have all seen how big the boat is. Can somebody show me where could the actual list (bill of lading) of all the aid be found?
Frankly I am quite interested how much aid may be laden on a vessel this size to help half a million Palestinians in Gaza.
As this according to the media was the main reason to sail The Challenger II there.

Thank you in advance.

The Israeli

It's not really related, but it gives an opinion of a former highly ranked Hamas activist who is the son of one of the Hamas founders and has switched sides.

He is a Palestinian, he knows Hamas very well, and it is interesting to listen and see what you can have from his speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLnHzLNuT-M

Siuin

The Israeli wrote: »

It's not really related, but it gives an opinion of a former highly ranked Hamas activist who is the son of one of the Hamas founders and has switched sides.

He is a Palestinian, he knows Hamas very well, and it is interesting to listen and see what you can have from his speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLnHzLNuT-M

You'll notice that nobody here is sticking up for Hamas, in fact I'm pretty sure that all the posters are very much against Hamas' actions, so basically this is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.