Should Israel really be condemned and boycotted?

Sean.3516

NKante wrote: »

Oh dear, this is like the exact opposite of what happened. The Palestinians were allied with Hitler, and it was the Jews being murdered 100 years ago by Arabs, not the other way around.

Where do you get this nonsense?

This French newspaper back in 1929 knew who the perpetrators were.

Up until this time Jews and Arabs got on pretty well together in Palestine. It was when the Mufti of Jerusalem Al Husseini came on the scene that things went down hill. He basically incited pogroms and had killed any arab chief who wasnt onboard. He spent the next ten years radicalizing the arab population in Palestine.

(The main targets in the pogroms were elderly orthodox jews living in the holy cities as shown in the pic, they stayed away from the Kibbutz's where younger jews who were capable of defending themselves lived)

During World War II he exchanged love letters with Hitler about how they would eventually extend the Holocaust to the Middle East. What more evidence do you need.

Odhinn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Up until this time Jews and Arabs got on pretty well together in Palestine. It was when the Mufti of Jerusalem Al Husseini came on the scene that things went down hill. He basically incited pogroms and had killed any arab chief who wasnt onboard. He spent the next ten years radicalizing the arab population in Palestine.

During World War II he exchanged love letters with Hitler about how they would eventually extend the Holocaust to the Middle East. What more evidence do you need.

Evidence for what? There was a nazi mufti so Israeli colonialism in the modern era is fair enough? He only got the position of mufti because the Brits rigged the election, ffs.

Ecce No Homo

It's a bit rich for any Irish person to be supporting Israel's colonisation project as it wasn't that long ago that we ourselves were being crunched underfoot by our own equally barbaric troupe of imperialists.

If you examine Jewish immigration to Palestine beginning around the end of the 1800s it's hard not to feel cynical about the whole Zionist project. Immigration was steadily ramped up through to the 1930s with land being bought on mass by international Zionist organisations (in collaboration with the Nazis via the Haavara Agreement).

Tenant farmers, many of whom had farmed that plot of land their entire lives along with their forefathers before them were evicted and left destitute.

NKante

Ecce No Homo wrote: »

It's a bit rich for any Irish person to be supporting Israel's colonisation project as it wasn't that long ago that we ourselves were being crunched underfoot by our own equally barbaric troupe of imperialists.

If you examine Jewish immigration to Palestine beginning around the end of the 1800s it's hard not to feel cynical about the whole Zionist project. Immigration was steadily ramped up through to the 1930s with land being bought on mass by international Zionist organisations (in collaboration with the Nazis via the Haavara Agreement).

Tenant farmers, many of whom had farmed that plot of land their entire lives along with their forefathers were evicted and left destitute.

Hate to break it to you, but 'palestine' is a white, European colonialist project. It was invented by the Romans.

It's the Jewish homeland that was usurped by Europeans and erased.

It's amazing how many people love the 'natives' of lands, unless the natives are Jews.

Oh...it's terrible what the Europeans did to the Native Americans......Oh it's dreadful what the Europeans did to the Aboriginals...

But the Jews?, na f*ck them. They don't belong. Let's take that 0.4% of land they inhabit in the Middle East, and give it to the poor Muslims who only have 99.6%

And for your information, Zionism came about directly from European oppression. Europeans chased the Jews out of their homeland in the Middle East and into Europe, then proceeded to chase the Jews out of Europe and back to the Middle East (not before murdering a few) and now many Europeans are talking about getting Jews out of the Middle East again...that they don't belong there.

Couldn't make this **** up.

mad muffin

Odhinn wrote: »

Aqquistion of territory by force has been forbidden by international law since the 1940's. And its not empty land thats the problem, its land thats lived on and farmed by the palestinian people.

Where exactly did the Jews come from?

Odhinn

NKante wrote: »

Hate to break it t(................)**** up.

You've gone into mental territory at this stage.


It was the Romans who caused the main Jewish exodus.



"Muslim" is not a nationality btw.

Odhinn

mad muffin wrote: »

Where exactly did the Jews come from?

A good many from the general area of what would have been called Palestine. However theres another group within judaism who have a eastern european heritage. Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi jews. Smaller groups came from Africa.

Sean.3516

Odhinn wrote: »

Evidence for what? There was a nazi mufti so Israeli colonialism in the modern era is fair enough? He only got the position of mufti because the Brits rigged the election, ffs.

It's evidence that the deep seated anti-semitism in the Palestinian population has been the primary barrier to peace.

In the past century the arabs have been offered perfectly good land for their own state no less than 5 times and have turned it down.
1936 - Peel Commission proposes 1st two state solution. Arabs reject.
1947 - UN does same thing. Arabs reject and launch war.
1967 - Knesset prepared to give land back for peace after 6 day war. Arabs refuse to negotiate.
2000 - Israel offers 94% of occupied land. Arabs reject.
2008 - Israel offes 94% of occupied land with extra land thrown in. Arabs launch intifada.

Please explain to me why the peace loving Palestinians continually reject land for peace deals other than that they clearly have no desire for peace.

Your post is also a reckless dismissal of the impact Husseini had once he became Mufti both in terms of the consequences of the violence he incited and how attitudes in the arab population changed from that point on. I suggest you research what happened during the pogroms and the arab revolt of 1936. He was considered a Pope like figure in the Muslim world so during the 1948 war, this guy was basically calling the shots.

Odhinn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It's evidence that the deep seated anti-semitism in the Palestinian population has been the primary barrier to peace.

....not the consistent israeli expansionism, God no.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

....................

In the past century the. Arabs launch intifada...................

Simplistic cherry picked nonsense.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Your post is (..............) calling the shots.

It's a dismissal of the notion that the actions of one repellent figure can be used to justify the abuse of a population 50 years later.

mad muffin

Odhinn wrote: »

A good many from the general area of what would have been called Palestine. However theres another group within judaism who have a eastern european heritage. Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi jews. Smaller groups came from Africa.

Yes but the Jewish people before they ever were born in Europe and North Africa. Had to come fro somewhere? Their origin so to speak.

Because Europeans won’t say the Jews originated here.

The North Africans won’t say the Jews originated here.

The Arab’s won’t say the Jew originated here.

They definitely didn’t originate in Australia. Not Asia. China. Japan.

Where did the original Jewish people. That got dispersed through the world come from?

Sean.3516

Odhinn wrote: »

Simplistic cherry picked nonsense.

It's not nonsense. It's well established history. Recent history in fact.

And I'd like you to answer the question. Why do you think the Palestinians rejected all of those offers?

Odhinn wrote: »

It's a dismissal of the notion that the actions of one repellent figure can be used to justify the abuse of a population 50 years later.

I never once stated that his actions justify Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians. I reject the notion that that mistreatment is real,
I'm saying his actions have incited the anti-semitism that is a barrier to peace

Odhinn

mad muffin wrote: »

Yes but the Jewish people before they ever were born in Europe and North Africa. Had to come fro somewhere? Their origin so to speak.

Because Europeans won’t say the Jews originated here.

The North Africans won’t say the Jews originated here.

The Arab’s won’t say the Jew originated here.

They definitely didn’t originate in Australia. Not Asia. China. Japan.

Where did the original Jewish people. That got dispersed through the world come from?

The "first jews" - They are believed to be an offshoot of the phoenicans, historically associated with the lebanon. Likewise the Palestinians, who are Arabised descendants of Jews. Afaik.

Odhinn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I never once stated that his actions justify Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians. I reject the notion that that mistreatment is real,
I'm saying his actions have incited the anti-semitism that is a barrier to peace

Dear o dear o dear.


You that the Israel does not apply the geneva conventions to the occupied territories? That Palestinians face Israeli martial law while settlers in the same area have the full protection of Israeli civil law?

Sean.3516

Amalgam wrote: »

People assume that Israel has always been attacked unfairly, but it started out with severe harassment/displacement of the Berber/Bedouin civilian population by Israeli 'groups', many of them a primitve Likud ensemble.

Early Jewish settlers (pre state of Israel) never started out as the abused once they got to Palestine, they were the abuser from the start.

This is complete rubbish.

When Jewish immigration to Palestine got underway in the late 19th century the Ottoman Empire controlled the entire area. The Jews didnt drive anybody from their land. It would have been impossible. Their numbers were too few. They certainly didnt displace the Bedouin (who are nomads, it'd be interesting to see how that would work).

Virtually all of the land was owned by arabs. They would only sell the worst, swampiest land to the jews meaning they had to reclaim it. It took years but eventually they made the land fertile and had better success growing things and had better quality of life than the arabs who had sold them the land to begin with.

The disparity fuelled alot of the resentment the arabs had for the jews which was capitalized on by Husseini. This is why I think the conflict is really just a modern retelling of Cain and Abel. Begrudging your neighbour's success rather than taking the initiative to improve yourself.

archer22

Odhinn wrote: »

A good many from the general area of what would have been called Palestine. However theres another group within judaism who have a eastern european heritage. Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi jews. Smaller groups came from Africa.

Ashkenazi group is by far the largest..their origins are in the old Khazar Empire.

A now defunct empire on Europe's eastern border which converted to Judaism around the 8th century for political reasons as it was caught in the middle between the Christian and Islamic worlds and didn't want to side with either.

It was destroyed by the Mongol's in the 14th century and it's inhabitants fled into Russia and Europe.

The smaller group the Sephardic are Semites and look similar to the Palestinians.

Odhinn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

This is complete rubbish.

When Jewish immigration to Palestine got underway in the late 19th century the Ottoman Empire controlled the entire area. The Jews didnt drive anybody from their land. It would have been impossible. Their numbers were too few. They certainly didnt displace the Bedouin (who are nomads, it'd be interesting to see how that would work).

Virtually all of the land was owned by arabs. They would only sell the worst, swampiest land to the jews meaning they had to reclaim it. It took years but eventually they made the land fertile and had better success growing things and had better quality of life than the arabs who had sold them the land to begin with.

The disparity fuelled alot of the resentment the arabs had for the jews which was capitalized on by Husseini. This is why I think the conflict is really just a modern retelling of Cain and Abel. Begrudging your neighbour's success rather than taking the initiative to improve yourself.

The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry who proposed the rejected split of the land in 1946 took a census which showed 70-75% of agricultural export produce came from Palestinian owned land.

Sean.3516

Odhinn wrote: »

Dear o dear o dear.


You that the Israel does not apply the geneva conventions to the occupied territories? That Palestinians face Israeli martial law while settlers in the same area have the full protection of Israeli civil law?

I don't believe they are mistreated for the following reasons.

Arabs living in Israel have no issues whatsoever. They're politicians, judges, soldiers (even though they're exempt from the draft, many serve). There is no systemic discrimination against arabs inside Israel.

When you say they don't "apply the geneva conventions to the occupied territories" I don't even know what that means. What specific abuses are you accusing Israel of?

Also the Geneva Convention certainly does not apply to Hamas. It only protects uniformed soldiers fighting on befalf of recognised nations. The purpose of this is to protect the civilian populations by disincentivising fighting without uniforms and hiding among civilians. So really it's Hamas that breaks the Geneva Convention and puts it's own people in danger with their use of schools and hospitals as bases and placing operatives inside protests at the border etc.

holyhead

As long as the US backs Israel, the latter will have no realistic need to seriously address the concerns of Palestinians. The continued building of settlements beyond Israel's border cannot be defended. Even if the Jews regard it as their historic homeland. The moving of the US Embassy to Jerusalem renders the US as a biased negotiator in any peace talks going forward. I don't foresee Arab states recognising the existence of Israel. Historically Arab countries have attacked Israel. This is why the IDF is up there with the best in the world. The existence of Israel is constantly under threat. Netanyahu will never regard a Palestinian as an equal to an Israeli. If an Israeli is killed he will want 15 Palestinians killed in retribution. This is clearly wrong and ironic given the Holocaust where the Nazi regime regarded Jews as inferior.

mad muffin

Odhinn wrote: »

The "first jews" - They are believed to be an offshoot of the phoenicans, historically associated with the lebanon. Likewise the Palestinians, who are Arabised descendants of Jews. Afaik.

I think we know they came from Israel and had been dispersed and displaced by successive empires. Last one being the British empire.

Imagine if the dispersed Irish from the north wanted to come back and find that Scottish plantations took up their homes. Planted there by the English. Wouldn’t they want to take their land back? I think they would

and now we also know that the in resolution to condemn Israel for treatment of women is a whole lotta payback by Muslim countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euvNE9KtkpE

Sean.3516

Odhinn wrote: »

The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry who proposed the rejected split of the land in 1946 took a census which showed 70-75% of agricultural export produce came from Palestinian owned land.

When the word Palestinian is used pre-1948 formation of Israel, it referred to everybody living in the land who was from Palestine. The word Palestine referred to the entire region including the land that would originally be part of Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian dichotomy we're used to using only exists after the State of Israel came into existence in 1948.

If the Committee of Inquiry used to term "Palestinian" to refer to exports going out of the country in 1946 then those exports may have come from Jewish or Arab land.

sportsfan90

I'm generally quite left-leaning but must admit I struggle to resolve the ethics of the Israel-Palestine situation. Most of my peers would be very much pro-Palestine, and I am too in the sense that I believe Palestinians deserve statehood with full control over the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem as a shared capital. However, I can't help feel that there those that either underestimate or conveniently ignore the existential threat Israel faces, and there are some on the Left who either promote or underestimate the very real evil of anti-Semitism, just as there are those on the Right who conflate legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism (not to mention the obvious anti-Semitism.that exists on the far right).

The likes of Netanyahu, Lieberman, Bennett etc. should very much be condemned. Continued building of settlements and destruction of existing Palestinian home should be condemned. Brute force by the IDF should be condemned. But the ordinary citizens of Israel.should not be demonised, just as one would not demonise ordinary people in China Russia, etc.

Should Israel be boycotted? Again, I struggle with that. Israel has a very divided political landscape with many progressive politicians and academics. And while a boycott of Israel is not in and of itself anti-Semitic (just like boycotting Apartheid South Africa was not anti-white or anti-Afrikaans), it can very easily co-opted by anti-semites. Also the BDS movement does not support a two-state solution (while not officially opposing it), and that concerns me because I can't personally endorse any resolution that sees either Isreal or Palestine "wiped off" the map.

It's a hugely complex situation. I talk myself in circles and contradict myself trying to reason it all out; I might have even done so in this post! But this is a conflict with so many grey areas, there is sadly no black-and-white clearcut resolution.

sportsfan90 wrote: »

I'll shamefully admit it's a conflict I know very little about.

Does anyone know any informative documentaries or youtube video on the topic? I realise many such things online are from far left/right publications with their own agendas. But if there's a documentary with no bias either way and shows the rights and wrongs of both sides, could they recommend them?

A book I found well worth reading is "My Promised Land" by Ari Shavit. He is a centre-left leaning Israeli but he presents both sides of the conflict, and doesn't sugar-coat Israeli violence against Palestine. His overall conclusion is that Israel is guilty of atrocities against the Palestinian people, but he acknowledges that it would be hypocritical of him to condemn actions that made his existence possible and his life safer.

Sadly Mr Shavit has since been outed as a sex pest, but try not to let that spoil your appreciation of his writing.

Odhinn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

When the word Palestinian is used pre-1948 formation of Israel, it referred to everybody living in the land who was from Palestine. The word Palestine referred to the entire region including the land that would originally be part of Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian dichotomy we're used to using only exists after the State of Israel came into existence in 1948.

If the Committee of Inquiry used to term "Palestinian" to refer to exports going out of the country in 1946 then those exports may have come from Jewish or Arab land.

No, it came of Palestinian arab land.

Moghead

I was wondering if anyone who is on the Pro Israel side of the fence could give me their thoughts on the following please? I posted it a few pages back but didn't get any response.

Do you think Israel has done anything wrong regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank? What do you think needs to be done to solve the problems regarding the conflict?

Sean.3516

Moghead wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone who is on the Pro Israel side of the fence could give me their thoughts on the following please? I posted it a few pages back but didn't get any response.

Do you think Israel has done anything wrong regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank? What do you think needs to be done to solve the problems regarding the conflict?

By merely occupying the land, I don't believe Israel is doing anything wrong. They occupied that land as a result of winning the 6 Day War in 1967. I war they did not start. When you invade your neighbour and you lose, you're neighbour has the right to occupy your land until a peace treaty is agreed to. Jordan has turned down every offer of land for peace as I've outlined in detail in earlier posts.

When people point to individual war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers, of course I'm happy to condemn any war crime. But where people go off the rails is when they deduce from war crimes committed by individuals that it is official Israeli policy to kill civilians. This is a groundless claim. The same people who make this claim are often the same people who refuse to condemn Hamas and Palestinian leadership who's modus operandi actually is targeting Israeli civilians.

Some say Israel is too careless when it comes to civilian casualties during airstrikes. As I have said it is not their fault that Hamas terrorists will use their own population as human shields and place their ordinance in civilian facilities. During the last Gaza War, they often dropped leaflets in civilian areas warning of impending strikes and sent out automated phone calls and texts warning people.

When it comes to the settlements I am genuinely split. I would prefer that they are more honest about what their intentions actually are with regard to the West Bank. Is the plan to continue the military occupation that began in 1967 or start integrating some of these areas into Israel through settlements?
Honestly, if they were to say: "You know what? We've occupied this area since 1967 and you guys have refused every deal to get it back so we're gonna keep it/keep some of it." I think this is their actual position except I would just prefer that they come out and say it. When they don't announce this is their plan it undermines the legitimacy of the occupation which in a vacuum is perfectly legal.

It's worth noting that the extent to which Israel really governs the occupied areas is heavily overstated. The settlements make up 3% of the area and the vast vast majority of palestinian civilians live under the control of the Palestinian authority. There arent any Israeli soldiers patrolling around Ramallah for instance.

mad muffin

Moghead wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone who is on the Pro Israel side of the fence could give me their thoughts on the following please? I posted it a few pages back but didn't get any response.

Do you think Israel has done anything wrong regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank? What do you think needs to be done to solve the problems regarding the conflict?

Have they been heavy handed? Yes.

Are they constantly being provoked by hamas to elicit such a response. Yes.

Hamas cares more about going… LOOK! LOOK AT ISRAEL!! LOOK WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO US!! THEY ARE KILLERS AND MURDERERS!! THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL!! As if what Israel is doing is happening in a vacuum.
Except what is hamas’s doctrine? Not one inch of land will the Jews occupy. What do they use but their own people to achieve this end.

Israel of course will never stand for this. As no other nation on this earth will. No other nation has been under such systemic attack from all its neighbours and from with in since its inception, as has Israel. And there they stand. Proud and defiant.

end of the road

Sean.3516 wrote: »

By merely occupying the land, I don't believe Israel is doing anything wrong. They occupied that land as a result of winning the 6 Day War in 1967. I war they did not start. When you invade your neighbour and you lose, you're neighbour has the right to occupy your land until a peace treaty is agreed to. Jordan has turned down every offer of land for peace as I've outlined in detail in earlier posts.

this is not correct. israel struck first. the occupation is illegal and jordan has no obligation to negotiate a peace treaty.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

When people point to individual war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers, of course I'm happy to condemn any war crime. But where people go off the rails is when they deduce from war crimes committed by individuals that it is official Israeli policy to kill civilians. This is a groundless claim. The same people who make this claim are often the same people who refuse to condemn Hamas and Palestinian leadership who's modus operandi actually is targeting Israeli civilians.

the actions on the ground by israel prove the claim that it is policy to kill civilians. plenty of us are happy to condemn killings of civilians by hamas, however anything hamas does is small fry compared to anything israel does. israel is the aggresser by miles as it is the one with the superior equipment, and it is the one who uses absolutely disproportionate force.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Some say Israel is too careless when it comes to civilian casualties during airstrikes. As I have said it is not their fault that Hamas terrorists will use their own population as human shields and place their ordinance in civilian facilities.

as i said, this is all propaganda based on 1 incident where weapons where found in a UN school, which were removed once discovered.
hamas are certainly no angels, but israel do deliberately target civilian areas, for reasons nothing to do with weapons supposebly being hidden in civilian areas or civilians being used as human shields. even if civilians are being used as human shields, the fact israel will carpet bomb the area anyway shows that it has no care what soever for civilians.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

During the last Gaza War, they often dropped leaflets in civilian areas warning of impending strikes and sent out automated phone calls and texts warning people.

only done about a minute before the strikes and certainly not in great numbers or even before every strike.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

When it comes to the settlements I am genuinely split. I would prefer that they are more honest about what their intentions actually are with regard to the West Bank. Is the plan to continue the military occupation that began in 1967 or start integrating some of these areas into Israel through settlements?
Honestly, if they were to say: "You know what? We've occupied this area since 1967 and you guys have refused every deal to get it back so we're gonna keep it/keep some of it." I think this is their actual position except I would just prefer that they come out and say it. When they don't announce this is their plan it undermines the legitimacy of the occupation which in a vacuum is perfectly legal.

the occupation is not legal. the settlements are illegal. simply stealing land does not entitle one to it. the only land israel can legally occupy is that given to it in 1948.
the plan is to take all of the west bank and settle it. and i have a feeling it may not stop there.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It's worth noting that the extent to which Israel really governs the occupied areas is heavily overstated. The settlements make up 3% of the area and the vast vast majority of palestinian civilians live under the control of the Palestinian authority. There arent any Israeli soldiers patrolling around Ramallah for instance.

it seems that the israely settlers do the work of the IDF and israely government in the west bank. forcing palestinians off their land and out of their homes.

Jimmy Garlic

Gatling wrote: »

Even when they weren't better equipped and outnumbered by several foreign aggressors they still essentially won ,
There will be never peace till the likes of the states ,Iran , Russia and a few others complety remove themselves

Peace according to Israel would only be if they could ethnically cleanse large tracts of land for their greater Israel project.

Cordell

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Peace according to Israel would only be if they could ethnically cleanse large tracts of land for their greater Israel project.

According to the other side it's the same, hence peace is very unlikely.
And disproportionate? Really, when you poke a bear you expect a disproportionate response, you don't complain and ask for sympathy and support.

Rezident

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So Israel often comes up in international politics these days and there are basically two diametrically opposite takes on the country and it's conflict with Palestine.

One, that Israel is an apartheid state similar to South Africa and practices discrimination and oppresses the Arab Palestinians who's land they have illegally occupied etc.

Two, that Israel is one of the most progressive country's in the Middle East in terms of it's society, economy and stance on human rights. That it has only ever acted in the interest of it's own national defence and that's main objective is peace in the region.

Obviously I have an opinion just like everybody else ( and full disclosure it's more in line with the second one than the first ) , but I'm interested in hearing some arguments that cut through the talking points. Rather than slogans I'd like to hear to most sophisticated of the main arguments for both sides.

Most of the keyboard warriors here haven't even been there so they don't really know what they are talking about. Imagine if you and your people had almost been wiped out in the Holocaust, except you can't imagine that can you? It might make you a bit defensive. Then you're surrounded by 21 countries and 300 million Muslims that openly plan to wipe you off the face of the Earth, Irish people can't seem to get their heads around this situation, they seem to think that peace is possible between Palestinians and Israelis, when a lasting peace is simply not possible.

Before the wall, Palestinians would walk into Tel Aviv and blow themselves up just to kill one Israeli, so sadly the wall is needed to protect against this hatred. hundreds of millions of people in the world have been 'displaced' e.g. the native American 'Indians', African Americans in the US etc. etc. but only the Palestinians seem to define themselves by one of their displacements (i.e. the one that involves the Jews, their mortal enemy). Many of the people I met in Palestine, are not actually from Palestine, they are from Syria, Iran etc. and they are not there with their AK-47's and AK-74s for peace.

I don't think anyone who has not been there or who does not have friends from the area (on both sides) can even come close to understanding the situation. People talk about a 'two state solution' but they have forgotten that Palestine was offered a two-state solution years ago, their response was: No, we want to wage 'unending war on the Zionists'. How can there be peace when both sides do not want it? People from neutral Ireland simply cannot understand the context, as if 'talks' are going to solve a war between two brothers that goes back to Abraham.

Look at the church in Hebron, Abraham's final resting place, they can't even use the same entrance of the same building, the best you can hope for is a 7 year peace (that will only last 3 and a half years), forget about lasting peace in the region, it is not possible in that context, you need to shift your expectations.

But a binary 'solution' that one side is bad and the other is good, is self-evidently wrong, and that's where most people go wrong, picking a side in this ancient war. Many Irish have picked Palestine, as they see it as the underdog (like Ireland) vs Israel (i.e. the Brits!) so I know gay Irish people that are activists for Palestine which is rapidly homophobic! If you're gay in Palestine you have two choices: get stoned to death or become a suicide bomber, and gay Irish Palestinian activists, defend Palestine...

storker

end of the road wrote: »

This is why they won't hand back the West Bank. The same thing is guaranteed to happen the reason they won't give it back is they want to colonise and expand on it. nothing to do with ineffective rockets.

Take a look at a map of Israel and see the "bite" that the West Bank takes out of Israeli territory with its westernmost points as close as 10 miles to the sea. This makes the West Bank, in military terms, a "salient" from which an attacker would only have a short distance to go in order to cut Israel in half. They'd be crazy to hand it back, whatever the morality of the situation, and the outcome of trading "land-for-peace" in Gaza merely underlines the wisdom of holding on to the West Bank.