Israel - Palestine Conflict. **Mod note in OP - updated 1st August**

SeaBreezes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I thought I might take these two together because the deal with the same root issue, which is what the implications of the boycotts or sanctions or what have you should be which I where I think there are other problems.

What exactly is the purpose of these sanctions proposed towards Israel, when compared with say the sanctions on Iran (which had the fairly straightforward aim of no nukes)? If we take the BDS movement for example, with calls effectively for the withdrawal of Israel to its 67 borders and the concession to all Palestinian refugees, a right of return to Israel, compensation for lost property, citizenship etc.

Does no-one else here that it might not be the wisest of decisions or indeed the most practical of decisions, to send into Israel half a million Jewish settlers and 5 million Palestinian refugees? Or in other words, nearly doubling the population of a country already riven by high land prices and ethnic tensions? Does no-one see a problem in opening up a territory which usually manages to fire several rockets a day into Israel, to unrestricted and unmonitored trade with the wider world? Or the problem in potentially creating a new territory like this in the West Bank?

If I could make one criticism of popular outrage against Israel it would be this presumption that the conflict is simply between a moustachioed villain of a nation, wantonly inflicting death and destruction on the innocent for its own pleasure, and that this is a conflict with a simple and quick resolution in the form of Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. I think most of us here would realize that any peace deal signed by the two sides would be followed by further attacks on Israel with the added spectre of Israeli settler hard-liners making retaliatory strikes at Palestine. Surely, since we have given some time to ponder the conflict, it behoves us to try and understand the need for a more nuanced understanding of the conflict.

Sir, with respect, read the FULL thread. Right from the start, it might assist your 'nuanced' understanding of the full issue.

And yes, it IS that simple.
Treat people with dignity and respect. Let their children live in peace and education.
Honour previous agreements.

Be a nation of integrity and honesty. When you sign agreements honour them. Then, maybe, peace has a chance.

The argument... ' They are savages, they cannot be trusted' holds no water here. Same was said about the irish for 800 years. And yet here we are.

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

But surely regardless of the cause you see it as a problem?



When I first came to the subject that was my inclination as well, but increasingly I've found it to be a problematic assumption - for one, it runs contrary to Israeli dealings with Egypt, which handed back an enormous chunk of territory in the form of the Sinai, in exchange for a peace co-existence. Secondly, it appears predicated upon the assumption that the only value to be had in the region is based upon the control of land - whereas, a successful peace agreement would provide Israel, not only access to a vast new number of international markets currently off limits to them, but the ability to develop Israel proper in a manner that the risk rocket and other attack currently prohibits.

My own speculation is that the settler enterprise is Israel's way of recouping its expenditure of what might me termed 'blood and treasure' within the West Bank, by acting as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Palestinians (Oh you want East Jerusalem AND the settlements) and by providing a physical form of pressure to exert on the Palestinians through their displacement. In the event that the West Bank becomes a permanent part of Israel, I imagine the settlements would be employed to further reduce the living standards of the Palestinians and encourage their emigration.



Well I don't see what exactly would be stopping a Jew from turning on the television, seeing the appalling destruction in Gaza and being angry about it any less than anyone else. I do feel however, the role of rising anti-Semitism is being understated here, at a very simple level, its rise mean more Jews proceeding to Israel, which only fuels the settler movement - this is the LAST thing we should be encouraging.

How exactly are we supposed to, as individuals, act against anti-semitic attacks in Europe. I live in Ireland and I haven't heard of any such attacks here.

BTW here is an article regarding the disengagement of Gaza in 2005 and who fired first ...

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/12/isra-d30.html

Just there for your interest and not expected to be accepted as the gospel.

The video I posted for your attention earlier would provide you an insight into what motivates such attention on the issue of Israel-Palestine. One potential answer is the legacy of the Holocaust and the perceived besmirching of the victims by the subsequent Israeli government's actions.

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I imagine that the transfer of settlers out of Gaza and into the West Bank, with the intention of demonstration the possibility of peaceful co-existence with a Palestinian state beginning in Gaza, is the very prelude of the movement of most of those settlers from the West Bank back to Israel proper. It is the ability of a Palestinian state to exist peacefully side by side with an Israeli state which will provide Israel with the wherewithal to accept those settlers currently occupying Palestinian land. To put it another way, Israeli occupation of Palestine is justified in part by the perceived need for 'security' and the maintenance of that security infrastructure. The removal of the need for that security, demonstrated by the existence of a peaceful unoccupied Gaza, undercuts any need or justification for settlement within the West Bank.

You really think that the Israeli government is engaged in such fuzzy policy making. They really invested that amount of money to build the infrastructure of the West Bank for the sole use of their citizens and subjected the native population to the book of a military occupation as a form of tough love and that really their grand plan is to leave and say "look we really didn't mean you any harm.We just had to teach you a lesson". From whence did this analysis come from?

Irish Praetorian

AngryHippie wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it serves the Zionist hawks in the Israeli government better to keep the people of Gaza so poor and desperate and powerless that they are unable to provide for the security of their own community and thus facilitate rocket attacks on southern Israel from within their territory ?
So they must secure their own territory, with sticks and stones ? They've been blockaded for years now, and any weaponry available for security measures to prevent the attacks on Israel end up being commandeered for that purpose, so they have been deliberately and in an extremely cynical and premeditated way been squeezed into the corner they are currently in by the Zionist strategists over the course of 5 or so decades now, and their only way out that Israel will agree to is to roll over and hand over responsibility for their territory to Israel, whose track record is to take their pick of the strategic resources, and further squeeze these people until they eventually cease to exist as a distinct ethnic group with an identity and right to self governance.
You can shill and apologize for Israel all you like, at some stage they will have to pay for their actions, in the near future they will cross the line, and go too far. At present the arab nations are preoccupied with their own security and future with current events, but as soon as their situation changes, Israel will be facing another 1967 situation because it will never be enough.

I can't see any way in which they can build a future without reconciling their issues with the Palestinians, as they will never have internal or external security until they have a level of communication and co-operation with them.

For your first point, I believe that's the opposite of what I'm suggesting, I think Israeli actions in Gaza have responded to rocket attacks in the worst possible way, by incurring casualties and damage sufficient to incite a new generation to hatred of Israel and violent acts in pursuit of that hatred.

Now the blockade you can malign for many things, particularly during the first four years of its operation, but failing a blockade, what exactly manner of response do you imagine Israel could take to rocket attacks on its territory? Moreover, given the ability of Gaza to secure supplies of construction materials and rockets despite this blockade, do you not imagine that they would also have the ability to obtain means of securing their own territory? Can you imagine the massive opportunity cost squandered upon ineffectual rockets? I am sorry but I cannot but hold in contempt this group which purports to rule Gaza yet undertakes strikes which have had the effect of only inciting retribution and destruction.

As for shilling, apologizing and defending Israel, I will only say that I look forward to a future where an Israel and a Palestine can exist peacefully side by side, something I imagine most of you do to, even though I disagree with many of the means you would employ. I however, do NOT look forward to the prospect of this 'time of reckoning' for a nuclear armed state, in one of the most volatile regions in the world, to be confronted with an alliance of neighbours intent on its utter destruction - that's not a situation where ANYONE wins.

SeaBreezes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I imagine that the transfer of settlers out of Gaza and into the West Bank, with the intention of demonstration the possibility of peaceful co-existence with a Palestinian state beginning in Gaza, is the very prelude of the movement of most of those settlers from the West Bank back to Israel proper. It is the ability of a Palestinian state to exist peacefully side by side with an Israeli state which will provide Israel with the wherewithal to accept those settlers currently occupying Palestinian land. To put it another way, Israeli occupation of Palestine is justified in part by the perceived need for 'security' and the maintenance of that security infrastructure. The removal of the need for that security, demonstrated by the existence of a peaceful unoccupied Gaza, undercuts any need or justification for settlement within the West Bank.

FYI apparently, this is what happens when peaceful palestinian families try to live: http://m.bbc.com/news/magazine-27883685

Irish Praetorian

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Sir, with respect, read the FULL thread. Right from the start, it might assist your 'nuanced' understanding of the full issue.

And yes, it IS that simple.
Treat people with dignity and respect. Let their children live in peace and education.
Honour previous agreements.

Be a nation of integrity and honesty. When you sign agreements honour them. Then, maybe, peace has a chance.

The argument... ' They are savages, they cannot be trusted' holds no water here. Same was said about the irish for 800 years. And yet here we are.

Forgive me, but do you seriously believe that if we created a Palestinian state today and withdrew all the settlers, then tomorrow we would see the first day of unending peace? Even the most authoritative peace treaty is still going to be battling against hard-liners on both sides eager to destroy it and that legacy of hatred will continue for quite some time. Fundamentally, I do not believe that simply by moving the violence to a new border, will we have achieved any good.

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Forgive me, but do you seriously believe that if we created a Palestinian state today and withdrew all the settlers, then tomorrow we would see the first day of unending peace? Even the most authoritative peace treaty is still going to be battling against hard-liners on both sides eager to destroy it and that legacy of hatred will continue for quite some time. Fundamentally, I do not believe that simply by moving the violence to a new border, will we have achieved any good.

No of course it wouldn't but it would be one step in the right direction. The creation of a Palestinian state is not a gift of the Israelis but a simple matter of affording them their legitimate rights under international law. It shouldn't be up for debate! Israel get out of the West Bank and count yourself lucky that your leaders are not hanged for war crimes.

Irish Praetorian

Tuisceanch wrote: »

How exactly are we supposed to, as individuals, act against anti-semitic attacks in Europe. I live in Ireland and I haven't heard of any such attacks here.

BTW here is an article regarding the disengagement of Gaza in 2005 and who fired first ...

Just there for your interest and not expected to be accepted as the gospel.

The video I posted for your attention earlier would provide you an insight into what motivates such attention on the issue of Israel-Palestine. One potential answer is the legacy of the Holocaust and the perceived besmirching of the victims by the subsequent Israeli government's actions.

Thanks for the link however it seems to pertain to events in December, the withdrawal having taken place in September. As for acting against attacks, mercifully I think we've been spared here, the worst having taken place in the UK, France and Germany (I know). I'd offer links of my own, sadly I think the forum still suspects me of being an ad bot

Irish Praetorian

Tuisceanch wrote: »

No of course it wouldn't but it would be one step in the right direction. The creation of a Palestinian state is not a gift of the Israelis but a simple matter of affording them their legitimate rights under international law.

For us sure, but for an Israeli citizen living in Haifa or Tel Aviv, how do you sell to them the idea of being at greater risk, under more fire, subject to more banal interference, heck even having to put up with more settlers coming home - nor is this something that can be done unilaterally, since any peace treaty is going to have to tackle border changes that both sides can agree to.

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

For us sure, but for an Israeli citizen living in Haifa or Tel Aviv, how do you sell to them the idea of being at greater risk, under more fire, subject to more banal interference, heck even having to put up with more settlers coming home - nor is this something that can be done unilaterally, since any peace treaty is going to have to tackle border changes that both sides can agree to.

I don't think it could be sold to the public. It would have to be imposed by the international community and given that the settlers are well armed I wouldn't expect them to go without a serious struggle. None of this is going to happen of course. I cannot perceive of a viable future for the Palestinians but maybe that's because I lack their courage and heart. That is why they are perceived by many here as a shining example of the spirit of humanity in the face of unimaginable adversity.

Irish Praetorian

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I don't think it could be sold to the public. It would have to be imposed by the international community and given that the settlers are well armed I wouldn't expect them to go without a serious struggle. None of this is going to happen of course. I cannot perceive of a viable future for the Palestinians but maybe that's because I lack their courage and heart. That is why they are perceived by many here as a shining example of the spirit of humanity in the face of unimaginable adversity.

Well I think you've hit the nail on the head here - how do you impose anything on a nuclear armed state convinced that its in a life or death struggle? Even the most recent upset in Russia has worked to their advantage, with many Israeli food companies targeted by boycotts in the West switching markets to Russia. I'm not so certain that the Palestinians are screwed however, the IS has managed to trigger a pretty speedy reconfiguration in Middle Eastern politics over the space of a few months, Hamas wasn't exactly popular in Gaza before the recent attacks and I'm not sure how they are now, to say nothing of developments in Jordan. However fundamentally I remain convinced that its not going to be our boycotting Israeli lemons that changes anything, but substantial changes between and within the two communities themselves.

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm not so certain that the Palestinians are screwed however, the IS has managed to trigger a pretty speedy reconfiguration in Middle Eastern politics over the space of a few months, Hamas wasn't exactly popular in Gaza before the recent attacks and I'm not sure how they are now, to say nothing of developments in Jordan.

It would be interesting if you could expand on the points you've made here.

Irish Praetorian

Tuisceanch wrote: »

It would be interesting if you could expand on the points you've made here.

My central point is, things can change very rapidly - a few months ago the Kurds were the largest ethnic group on the planet without a state, today they are rapidly expected to join the community of nations. In the interim, the IS is emerging with the backing of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as a major threat to just about everybody on the Euphrates, especially Iran, who having previously been more or less opposed to the interests of the US (or rather their chief ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, is now under the leadership of a reformist president and no longer a pariah for their attempted nuclear weapons programme, whilst their own client state in the form of Syria, or rather the Syria of Assad, is now seen as some kind of a bulwark against the threat of the IS, together with the aforementioned Kurds. With the rise of the IS, and its potential to adsorb funding previously shifted by Qatar and Saudi toward Hamas, we may be looking at a fundamental weakening of Hamas (already hit badly by the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) and its replacement in Gaza, providing an opportunity for a renewal of peace efforts first in Gaza and then in the wider Palestinian territories. The interesting possibility is of course Jordan, which despite having an ethnic Palestinian majority has been rather wary of the Palestinian cause since Black September. A change in that regime may provide the possibility for a Palestinian state that doesn't just end at the Dead Sea, but extends across the trans-Jordan, solving not only the problem of chronic overpopulation in Gaza, but neatly deals with Israel's need to have a secure border (the two countries having gotten along quite well since their peace treaty, amazing what billions of US dollars on both sides can do).

As you can see, its an extremely complex situation, but the one thing to take away is never say never.

NotASheeple

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Is there a respectful form of address you would prefer?

Posters on this site don’t ‘address’ each other by title. You reply to, or ignore a post accordingly. Yes I know your account has been dormant for some years. But the etiquette hasn’t changed you know. So I'm guessing your rush to join the thread, must have confused you somewhat.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Do you believe it impossible to reconcile the notion that one can detest loss of life without descending to unadulterated anti-Israeli sentiment?

It’s impossible to abhor the deaths and loss of life during WW2 and not condemn the Nazi’s themselves. Similarly, it’s impossible to condemn the deaths of innocent Palestinians throughout the decades and not abhor the actions of Zionist fanatics.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

If you think there is some specific piece of knowledge or education that I am missing then I am happy to hear it.

I advised that you read the thread, because your knowledge will be greatly assisted by doing so. The answers are contained within. Assuming you want to find them of course.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

They give me a little bit of pain now and again but I find a bit of cotton wool and a dab of oil wadded in usually does some good.

At least you had the good sense this time, to discontinue your ludicrous comparison between the Irish & Israeli State.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Do you imagine, given my preceding sentence regarding the creation of an Israeli state, that I am not aware of what Zionism in the historical sense might be categorized as? I ask the question genuinely, as I have found people offer contradictory definitions

You seem to be deliberately trying to make complex, that which is not complex. Xenophobic, intolerant, ideologies based on hate like Nazism, Zionism ect. They are not that difficult to understand at all. But again, if you had the manners to read through the thread as I have suggested. You would see a consistent and in many cases, an overlapping definition/explanation of Zionism.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

your own definition appears to include some element of toxicity - perhaps you might expand?

Definition? I never gave, not attempted to give a definition of Zionism in my last post. I directed you to where you would find the enlightenment you seek. Always a big boo boo for me, when someone does not read a post correctly, or guilefully misinterprets it.

biko

Linking to an American paper (yes Jewish) as Swedish general media seems to have overlooked it...
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/18/swedish-woman-viciously-beaten-for-wearing-jewish-star-necklace/

A Muslim mob in Uppsala, Sweden last week set upon and severely beat a Jewish mother of four, for wearing a Jewish Star of David necklace, Israel’s NRG News reported Sunday.

While walking in one of the city’s largely Muslim populated neighborhoods, “A Muslim girl saw that I was wearing the Star of David on my neck and she started swearing at me and spat in my face. I got very upset and pushed her off” Sjögren told the World Zionist Organization Center for Countering Antisemitism.

“There were at least ten witnesses to the attack. All ten of them were wearing hijabs or scarfs in the colors of the PLO. Some surrounding witnesses claim that I ‘tripped’ and fell and that no one hurt me. It’s just unbelievable.”
Sjögren’s jaw was severely damaged, her eyes swollen, and she sustained injuries all over her body, according to the report.

“I cannot go to the police. The worst thing is that [the assailants] will get my name and address. They’ll know where to find me and know I am the Jew who reported it,” she said.

evo2000

Israel is cutting the grass so to speak, they seem to do this every few years, you cant destroy Hamas but you can beat it down from time to time to keep it manageable as sadistic as it is, thats what there doing,

They tend to blame the Palestinians for electing hamas, but what choice do they have when they are in the biggest open prison in the world its there only means of fighting back.

But at the end of the day theres millions of issues to keep everyone arguing amongst themselves about this issue when in reality you only need to see whos being killed and by who to determine whats happening, israel wants Palestinians gone, they will keep edging away at gaza till they own it they will keep doing these slaughters till the outcry gets too much, then they will stop till its forgotten about and start edging away again... rinse and repeat till the thorn in there side is gone or so small it will only be local news.

The international community will do **** all about this because israel suits the western agenda down to the ground,

shedweller

So by extension, we (everybody) are ok with everything israel is doing to expand its borders.
....Oh wait, we're not. We've imposed sanctions on other countries that attempted a fraction of what israel have.

Could some well versed person enlighten me as to why that is so? Why the apparent bending of the rules, so to speak?

hju6

My plea to the people of Israel: Liberate yourselves by liberating Palestine

Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, in an exclusive article for Haaretz, calls for a global boycott of Israel and urges Israelis and Palestinians to look beyond their leaders for a sustainable solution to the crisis in the Holy Land.

http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.610687?v=66691173328C172D77ED27A198582751

Vandango

biko wrote: »

Linking to an American paper (yes Jewish) as Swedish general media seems to have overlooked it...
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/18/swedish-woman-viciously-beaten-for-wearing-jewish-star-necklace/

Deplorable to see a few bigots behave like that. But is anyone surprised to see it happening? No I doubt it. Sad to see ordinary, decent Jews having to pay for the consequences of the Netanyahu and his fellow psychopaths.

RustyNut

Vandango wrote: »

Deplorable to see a few bigots behave like that. But is anyone surprised to see it happening? No I doubt it. Sad to see ordinary, decent Jews having to pay for the consequences of the Netanyahu and his fellow psychopaths.

Indeed and one of the zionists favorite propaganda tactics is to blur the line between anti zionism and anti semitism.

RustyNut

Son Of A Vidic

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

My central point is, things can change very rapidly - a few months ago the Kurds were the largest ethnic group on the planet without a state, today they are rapidly expected to join the community of nations. In the interim, the IS is emerging with the backing of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as a major threat to just about everybody on the Euphrates, especially Iran, who having previously been more or less opposed to the interests of the US (or rather their chief ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, is now under the leadership of a reformist president and no longer a pariah for their attempted nuclear weapons programme, whilst their own client state in the form of Syria, or rather the Syria of Assad, is now seen as some kind of a bulwark against the threat of the IS, together with the aforementioned Kurds. With the rise of the IS, and its potential to adsorb funding previously shifted by Qatar and Saudi toward Hamas, we may be looking at a fundamental weakening of Hamas (already hit badly by the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) and its replacement in Gaza, providing an opportunity for a renewal of peace efforts first in Gaza and then in the wider Palestinian territories. The interesting possibility is of course Jordan, which despite having an ethnic Palestinian majority has been rather wary of the Palestinian cause since Black September. A change in that regime may provide the possibility for a Palestinian state that doesn't just end at the Dead Sea, but extends across the trans-Jordan, solving not only the problem of chronic overpopulation in Gaza, but neatly deals with Israel's need to have a secure border (the two countries having gotten along quite well since their peace treaty, amazing what billions of US dollars on both sides can do).

As you can see, its an extremely complex situation, but the one thing to take away is never say never.

Yet you fail to look at Israel. The one nation that refuses to change, refuses to reason. No amount of smoke blowing will mask the real elephant in the room - Zionism. Yes we can get distracted by looking elsewhere, but until Zionist governments in Israel finally see sense, there will be no long term peace. Now Admittedly, that is akin to asking the Nazi's to see sense, reason and tolerance. Unfortunately it is not likely to happen, because you can't reason with the blind hatred of supremacist ideologies like Nazism & Zionism.

So there’s no point in speaking of change in other nations, when the one nation where it really matters - Israel. Still adheres to the same Zionist principles that its State was built upon. So we really shouldn't be surprised to see a State founded by terrorists, consistently behave like a terrorist. A bully only responds to pressure and intimidation and since the Americans aren't willing to act or take the lead. Thanks in no small part to their many vested interests in Israel. One can only hope that people will heed the advice of that great man, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and boycott. A boycott is the best weapon to bring Bibi and his zealot war dogs to heel. Maybe then will we finally see a change in mindset where it really matters - in Israel.

Tuisceanch

biko wrote: »

Linking to an American paper (yes Jewish) as Swedish general media seems to have overlooked it...
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/18/swedish-woman-viciously-beaten-for-wearing-jewish-star-necklace/

It would have been more instructive if you could have provided some analysis of this story within the context of the general theme of this discussion.

Here for example is an article on the rise of Anti-Semitism in Europe

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/world/europe/jews-in-europe-report-a-surge-in-anti-semitism.html?_r=0
It reports on a survey conducted recently. I will provide the quote to highlight this:

"The survey, by the bloc’s Fundamental Rights Agency, focused on eight countries that account for more than 90 percent of Europe’s Jewish population and found that “while member states have made sustained efforts to combat anti-Semitism, the problem is still widespread.”

I will draw your attention to the following:

"One-third of respondents said they considered statements critical of Israel as anti-Semitic. "

Is this,in your opinion,an accurate description of anti-semitism?

Another quote:

"The Internet has become a particular cause for concern among European Jews, with 75 percent of those surveyed stating that they considered anti-Semitism a problem online. Nearly the same proportion said they believed it had grown more serious over the past five years. A quarter said they had experienced some form of anti-Semitic harassment.
Physical violence, however, is comparatively rare, with 4 percent responding that they had experienced violence or threats of violence because they were Jewish in the year before the survey.


Most previous efforts to assess the level of anti-Semitism have relied on the number of officially reported incidents of harassment or physical violence in individual countries. Such figures, however, appear to understate the extent of the problem, as most incidents are not reported and only 13 of the 28 countries in the European Union collect data on anti-Semitic incidents. "


Now since the woman who is reported to have been attacked in Sweden is:


"Sjogren is reportedly helping to plan a Sept. 7 rally in support of Israel in conjunction with the WZO, something she was involved with before the attack."

and that her name is in the public domain as a consequence of the media report you linked and others plus the fact it is on Facebook and you yourself disseminated the information they why does she not feel a responsibility to her community to report the incident to the Swedish police so that a stand can be made against this issue?

Please feel free to expand on the issues which you felt needed raising.

Tuisceanch

Here is a highly recommended video of a debate between Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben Ami.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-CiTT2OxlQ


Shlomo Ben-Ami (Hebrew: שלמה בן עמי‎; born 17 July 1943) is a former Israeli diplomat, politician and historian.

Ben-Ami remained Foreign Minister and Security Minister until March 2001, when, having won elections, Ariel Sharon took over from Barak. Ben-Ami refused to serve in the Sharon government and resigned from the Knesset in August 2002.
In their report published in 2003, the Or Commission held him responsible for the behavior of security forces during the October 2000 riots in which Israeli police killed 12 Israeli Arabs and one Palestinian, and failed to predict and control rioting which resulted in the death of a Jewish Israeli. The report recommended that Ben-Ami be disqualified from serving as Internal Security Minister in the future.[2] Despite the disqualification, Ben-Ami was not considered to be a hard-liner in Israeli relations with the Palestinians and during his time in the Barak government, he was a political rival of Shimon Peres.




It is a a particularly interesting debate because of the insider perspective it provides on Oslo and the insights on the issue of International Law,terrorism and torture.

Irish Praetorian

evo2000 wrote: »

Israel is cutting the grass so to speak, they seem to do this every few years, you cant destroy Hamas but you can beat it down from time to time to keep it manageable as sadistic as it is, thats what there doing,

They tend to blame the Palestinians for electing hamas, but what choice do they have when they are in the biggest open prison in the world its there only means of fighting back.

But at the end of the day theres millions of issues to keep everyone arguing amongst themselves about this issue when in reality you only need to see whos being killed and by who to determine whats happening, israel wants Palestinians gone, they will keep edging away at gaza till they own it they will keep doing these slaughters till the outcry gets too much, then they will stop till its forgotten about and start edging away again... rinse and repeat till the thorn in there side is gone or so small it will only be local news.

The international community will do **** all about this because israel suits the western agenda down to the ground,

Do you really imagine that Israel is happy to be rocketed without interruption from Gaza and only react once every few years because it suits some 'Western Agenda'? Incidentally if you could expand on what exactly that agenda is I would be grateful. Also it might be some consolation to know that even if America and the EU turned around tomorrow and decided to employ all their resources to curbing Israel, it still wouldn't be a foregone conclusion what would happen.

However to simply reduce Israeli operations to being ethnic cleansing for the purposes of obtaining additional land is simply flying in the face of the facts. For one thing the Palestinian population is not only growing, but growing at a faster rate than the Israeli one. Secondly, if Israel had wanted empty land they were well placed to simply drive out the local population when they first gained control of the area in 1967, just as Turkey did with the Greeks of Northern Cyprus in 1974, or as the Armenians did to the Azeris in the 1990s. The price of course that Israel has to pay for failing to display the same barbarity and cruelty as several other states in its neighbourhood is now is obvious but at any rate you can't really say they are doing a good job of 'getting rid' of the Palestinians.

bumper234

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Do you really imagine that Israel is happy to be rocketed without interruption from Gaza and only react once every few years because it suits some 'Western Agenda'? Incidentally if you could expand on what exactly that agenda is I would be grateful. Also it might be some consolation to know that even if America and the EU turned around tomorrow and decided to employ all their resources to curbing Israel, it still wouldn't be a foregone conclusion what would happen.

However to simply reduce Israeli operations to being ethnic cleansing for the purposes of obtaining additional land is simply flying in the face of the facts. For one thing the Palestinian population is not only growing, but growing at a faster rate than the Israeli one. Secondly, if Israel had wanted empty land they were well placed to simply drive out the local population when they first gained control of the area in 1967, just as Turkey did with the Greeks of Northern Cyprus in 1974, or as the Armenians did to the Azeris in the 1990s. The price of course that Israel has to pay for failing to display the same barbarity and cruelty as several other states in its neighbourhood is now is obvious but at any rate you can't really say they are doing a good job of 'getting rid' of the Palestinians.

Your first line tells me the rest of your post is full of lies.

Irish Praetorian

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Yet you fail to look at Israel. The one nation that refuses to change, refuses to reason. No amount of smoke blowing will mask the real elephant in the room - Zionism. Yes we can get distracted by looking elsewhere, but until Zionist governments in Israel finally see sense, there will be no long term peace. Now Admittedly, that is akin to asking the Nazi's to see sense, reason and tolerance. Unfortunately it is not likely to happen, because you can't reason with the blind hatred of supremacist ideologies like Nazism & Zionism.

So there’s no point in speaking of change in other nations, when the one nation where it really matters - Israel. Still adheres to the same Zionist principles that its State was built upon. So we really shouldn't be surprised to see a State founded by terrorists, consistently behave like a terrorist. A bully only responds to pressure and intimidation and since the Americans aren't willing to act or take the lead. Thanks in no small part to their many vested interests in Israel. One can only hope that people will heed the advice of that great man, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and boycott. A boycott is the best weapon to bring Bibi and his zealot war dogs to heel. Maybe then will we finally see a change in mindset where it really matters - in Israel.

Well with respect, considering my condemnation of Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, the failure of Israeli governments to embrace the peace process with more zeal and the needlessly bloody retaliatory campaigns of the IDF, I don't think I've been shying away from either looking at or indeed criticising Israel.

Now we can labour the point of any and all evils in the region being the product of 'Zionism', but what exact actions arising from that ideology are we referring to? Is the mere belief that there should be a state called Israel in the middle east part of this violent ideology that is apparently the cause of so much evil? Is it rather the belief that settlers from this state should set up shop on another peoples land on the grounds of religion? (my own estimation as to the source of the problem). If we are to criticise I think there is nothing stopping us from calling a spade a spade and saying exactly what we mean - to fall back on catch-alls like 'Zionism' does nothing but muddy the waters and provides an umbrella under which anyone who protests say Israeli settlements could run the risk of being associated with fanatics who would see no Jew from the river to the sea.

Also we are also a terrorist founded state ourselves, just saying

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Do you really imagine that Israel is happy to be rocketed without interruption from Gaza and only react once every few years because it suits some 'Western Agenda'?

You do have a habit of returning to this fallacy which is disappointing as it flies in the face of the facts and consequently discredits the merits of your subsequent musings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Summer_Rains

Irish Praetorian

bumper234 wrote: »

Your first line tells me the rest of your post is full of lies.

Well by all means do feel free to itemize and identify any factual mistakes I've made, or perhaps make clear any faults I've made in my argument - but to simply close your ears and go 'lalala I can't hear you' I think runs contrary to the idea of having a debate.

bumper234

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Well by all means do feel free to itemize and identify any factual mistakes I've made, or perhaps make clear any faults I've made in my argument - but to simply close your ears and go 'lalala I can't hear you' I think runs contrary to the idea of having a debate.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Do you really imagine that Israel is happy to be rocketed without interruption from Gaza and only react once every few years because it suits some 'Western Agenda'? Incidentally if you could expand on what exactly that agenda is I would be grateful.

It's a well documented fact that there were VERY FEW rockets fired from aza in the last year. Hardly "without interruption" :rolleyes:

Irish Praetorian

Tuisceanch wrote: »

You do have a habit of returning to this fallacy which is disappointing as it flies in the face of the facts and consequently discredits the merits of your subsequent musings.

You could have picked Cast Lead too but how does any of this run contrary to the fact that since 2001 Israel has been on the receiving end of 12,000 rocket and 5,000 mortar attacks? And that these attacks have proceeded continuously since 2006 with only 1 month without attacks? I imagine you might select these operations as a justification for the rocket attacks, to say that 'well Israel has fired first', but one side here hasn't stopped firing in 8 years.

bumper234 wrote: »

It's a well documented fact that there were VERY FEW rockets fired from aza in the last year. Hardly "without interruption" :rolleyes:

I deal with this above but I believe 'only 70' attacks is still not quite the same as 'very few', nor is it an amount that any state would be expected to tolerate without response.

RustyNut

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

You could have picked Cast Lead too but how does any of this run contrary to the fact that since 2001 Israel has been on the receiving end of 12,000 rocket and 5,000 mortar attacks? And that these attacks have proceeded continuously since 2006 with only 1 month without attacks? I imagine you might select these operations as a justification for the rocket attacks, to say that 'well Israel has fired first', but one side here hasn't stopped firing in 8 years.



I deal with this above but I believe 'only 70' attacks is still not quite the same as 'very few', nor is it an amount that any state would be expected to tolerate without response.

Do you accept the Palestinian peoples right to resist the illegal occupation of their lands?

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

You could have picked Cast Lead too but how does any of this run contrary to the fact that since 2001 Israel has been on the receiving end of 12,000 rocket and 5,000 mortar attacks? And that these attacks have proceeded continuously since 2006 with only 1 month without attacks? I imagine you might select these operations as a justification for the rocket attacks, to say that 'well Israel has fired first', but one side here hasn't stopped firing in 8 years.



I deal with this above but I believe 'only 70' attacks is still not quite the same as 'very few', nor is it an amount that any state would be expected to tolerate without response.

It's time you provide some resources to back up your continued assertions on this point. This,now,is my third time to provide some resources to challenge your extremely biased position.

"The media assumption is that in withdrawing from Gaza in September 2005, Israel ended its conflict with at least that portion of Palestine and gave up, as [CBS Face the Nation host (and CBS Evening News anchor) Bob] Schieffer put it, “what the Palestinians supposedly wanted.” In reality, however, since the pullout and before the recent escalation of violence, at least 144 Palestinians in Gaza had been killed by Israeli forces, often by helicopter gunships, according to a list compiled by the Israeli human rights group B’tselem. Only 31 percent of the people killed were engaged in hostile actions at the time of their deaths, and 25 percent of all those killed were minors.
From the time of the pullout until the recent upsurge in violence, according to B’tselem’s lists, no Israelis were killed by violence emanating from Gaza. Although during this period Palestinian militants launched some 1,000 crude Kasam missiles from Gaza into Israel, no fatalities resulted; at the same time, Israel fired 7,000 to 9,000 heavy artillery shells into Gaza. On June 9, just two weeks before the Hamas raid that killed two Israeli soldiers and captured a third, an apparent Israeli missile strike killed seven members of a Palestinian family picnicking on a Gaza beach, which prompted Hamas to end its 16-month-old informal ceasefire with Israel. (Though Israel has denied responsibility for the killings, a Human Rights Watch investigation strongly challenged the denial, calling the likelihood of Israel not being responsible “remote”; Human Rights Watch, 6/15/06.) Hamas has repeatedly pointed to the Gaza beach incident as one of the central events that prompted its cross-border raid—indeed, Schieffer’s own CBS Evening News has reported that claim (CBS Evening News, 6/25/06). Even so, Schieffer seems unable to recall this recent event (see Action Alert, 6/30/06).
Hamas also points to the capture of some of its leaders by Israel as the provocation for its raid. If Israelis had every right, as Schieffer said, to respond with force to the capture of one soldier by Hamas, then how are Palestinians expected to feel about the more than 9,000 prisoners captured and held by Israel—including 342 juveniles and over 700 held without trial (Mandela Center for Human Rights, 4/30/06)?
Moreover, Israel’s withdrawal did not remotely give Palestinians “what they wanted.” In addition to its continued deadly attacks on Gaza, Israel has continued to control Gaza’s borders and has withheld tens of millions of dollars of tax revenue in response to Hamas’ victory in democratic elections in January 2006. Israel’s actions crippled the Gaza economy and prompting warnings from the U.N. of a looming humanitarian disaster (UNRWA, 7/8/06).
None of this is to say that Hamas, which has regularly ignored the distinction between military and civilian targets, does not share part of the blame for the current crisis. But to act as though Israel had been behaving as a peace-loving neighbor to Gaza until the soldier’s capture is a willful rewriting of very recent history."


http://www.globalissues.org/article/664/crisis-in-lebanon-2006

Irish Praetorian

RustyNut wrote: »

Do you accept the Palestinian peoples right to resist the illegal occupation of their lands?

Fundamentally I don't think I can object to a Palestinian attacking an Israeli soldier or military installation in the occupied territories, yet I believe that Palestinian attacks on Israel proper and the civilian infrastructure is at the very least, spectacularly unwise, considering the prospects for retaliation. Moreover, I think it erodes the legitimacy of the cause of Palestinian resistance by conflating the struggle for a Palestinian state with acts of terrorism. Moreover on a more practical level, the rocket attacks seem to be a fantastically expensive way of doing nothing more than forcing Israel to spend time and money countering them, rather than actually bringing actual benefits to the Palestinian population.

Irish Praetorian

Tuisceanch wrote: »

It's time you provide some resources to back up your continued assertions on this point. This,now,is my third time to provide some resources to challenge your extremely biased position

I'm still not allowed to post links however if you go to the Summer Rains link you posted earlier, at the bottom you will find a link 'Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel' itemising the breakdown in rocket and mortar attacks on Israel since 2001, the totals come to 12,383 rocket attacks, 4,890 mortar attacks for a total 17,228 attacks - of these roughly 1700 (or 10%) occurred during the 2001 - 2005 period between the start of rocket attacks and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

RustyNut

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Fundamentally I don't think I can object to a Palestinian attacking an Israeli soldier or military installation in the occupied territories, yet I believe that Palestinian attacks on Israel proper and the civilian infrastructure is at the very least, spectacularly unwise, considering the prospects for retaliation. Moreover, I think it erodes the legitimacy of the cause of Palestinian resistance by conflating the struggle for a Palestinian state with acts of terrorism. Moreover on a more practical level, the rocket attacks seem to be a fantastically expensive way of doing nothing more than forcing Israel to spend time and money countering them, rather than actually bringing actual benefits to the Palestinian population.

Can we have your definition of terrorism?

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Well by all means do feel free to itemize and identify any factual mistakes I've made, or perhaps make clear any faults I've made in my argument - but to simply close your ears and go 'lalala I can't hear you' I think runs contrary to the idea of having a debate.

Is this akin to the 10,000 dollar challenge of Alan Dershowitz? I think you might be getting into deep water if that's the case.

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I'm still not allowed to post links however if you go to the Summer Rains link you posted earlier, at the bottom you will find a link 'Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel' itemising the breakdown in rocket and mortar attacks on Israel since 2001, the totals come to 12,383 rocket attacks, 4,890 mortar attacks for a total 17,228 attacks - of these roughly 1700 (or 10%) occurred during the 2001 - 2005 period between the start of rocket attacks and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

During the period when it was illegally occupied,you mean? IS this not relevant? What was Israel doing whilst this was happening? What about the previous post regarding the period since the withdrawal in 2005 to the the next major assault of Israeli forces. Are the human rights organisations quoted lying?

Irish Praetorian

RustyNut wrote: »

Can we have your definition of terrorism?

Generally speaking I would understand it as non-state actors engaging in acts of mass destruction or organized violence to achieve political aims.

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Generally speaking I would understand it as non-state actors engaging in acts of mass destruction or organized violence to achieve political aims.

So the Nazi's were not engaged in terrorism then?

Irish Praetorian

Tuisceanch wrote: »

During the period when it was illegally occupied,you mean? IS this not relevant? What was Israel doing whilst this was happening? What about the previous post regarding the period since the withdrawal in 2005 to the the next major assault of Israeli forces. Are the human rights organisations quoted lying?

Do you not find it problematic that the vast majority of the attacks took place AFTER the Israeli withdrawal from the region? Also if I could refer you to the piece you post earlier, did you not notice the part about militants launching 1,000 attacks on Israel in the intervening period? You might decry Israel for responding 8 times over, but do you imagine the Israeli public would react positively if several of their number had been killed and the explanation of the military was that they didn't think the strikes were a threat?

Nodin

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Do you not find it problematic that the vast majority of the attacks took place AFTER the Israeli withdrawal from the region? .................

You'll find that many members of the PIRA were from the south. Therein might lie your answer.

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Do you not find it problematic that the vast majority of the attacks took place AFTER the Israeli withdrawal from the region? Also if I could refer you to the piece you post earlier, did you not notice the part about militants launching 1,000 attacks on Israel in the intervening period? You might decry Israel for responding 8 times over, but do you imagine the Israeli public would react positively if several of their number had been killed and the explanation of the military was that they didn't think the strikes were a threat?

You avoided answering the question yet again. I posted a piece which cites the human rights organisations version of events and asked you whether you thought they were lying.Your stance is that Israel has acted in self defense and I dispute that and so do these organisations. So are you right and they're wrong?

bumper234

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Generally speaking I would understand it as non-state actors engaging in acts of mass destruction or organized violence to achieve political aims.

Why is it only terrorism when it's non state actors?

paulmcshane

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Generally speaking I would understand it as non-state actors engaging in acts of mass destruction or organized violence to achieve political aims.

Very convenient!

RustyNut

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Generally speaking I would understand it as non-state actors engaging in acts of mass destruction or organized violence to achieve political aims.

So not Hamas then as they are the elected representatives of the people of Gaza and are legitimately resisting military aggression by their neighbour.

I would consider the deliberate targeting of Schools, hospitals and UN places of safety to be acts of terrorism. Targeting kids playing on a beach, the collective punishment of an entire population that is terrorism.
Or is it excusable to you because they were state actors who carried out these acts?

Irish Praetorian

Tuisceanch wrote: »

So the Nazi's were not engaged in terrorism then?

During their first few years as a political party, harassing the opposition, beating up rivals and attacking dissident figures opposed to their rise, you have the textbook definition of a terrorist organization (and oddly similar to Hamas at that).

Now once the Nazi party assumed controlled over the German apparatus of state you're dealing with a whole new level of evil; discriminatory racial laws, systematic extermination of ethnic, religious, sexual, political and other groups, war crimes pertaining to the treatment of prisoners and occupied populations (which is in my view a far better area for comparison) - a whole new and far more terrifying level of evil, but it doesn't really fit the title of terrorism.

bumper234

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

During their first few years as a political party, harassing the opposition, beating up rivals and attacking dissident figures opposed to their rise, you have the textbook definition of a terrorist organization (and oddly similar to Hamas at that).

Now once the Nazi party assumed controlled over the German apparatus of state you're dealing with a whole new level of evil; discriminatory racial laws, systematic extermination of ethnic, religious, sexual, political and other groups, war crimes pertaining to the treatment of prisoners and occupied populations (which is in my view a far better area for comparison) - a whole new and far more terrifying level of evil, but it doesn't really fit the title of terrorism.

So everything that Israel is doing?

What was the name of your previous account? Some of the pro Israeli people made so many it's no wonder they forgot the passwords to them all :rolleyes:

Nodin

Winning hearts and minds here again.............

"Hamas says the wife and child of its military commander, Mohammed Deif, have been killed in an Israeli air strike on the Gaza Strip.

At least 19 Palestinians have died since hostilities resumed on Tuesday, with both sides blaming each other for the collapse of the Cairo peace talks."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28862595

Tuisceanch

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

During their first few years as a political party, harassing the opposition, beating up rivals and attacking dissident figures opposed to their rise, you have the textbook definition of a terrorist organization (and oddly similar to Hamas at that).

Now once the Nazi party assumed controlled over the German apparatus of state you're dealing with a whole new level of evil; discriminatory racial laws, systematic extermination of ethnic, religious, sexual, political and other groups, war crimes pertaining to the treatment of prisoners and occupied populations (which is in my view a far better area for comparison) - a whole new and far more terrifying level of evil, but it doesn't really fit the title of terrorism.

Well that's a legalistic answer if ever I heard one. You maintain your position on your initial assertion and suggest that once the Nazi's rose to power their subsequent action could not be deemed terrorism but something more evil. So by that definition are the Israeli government's actions more evil than terrorism and deserve a different label?