Israel vs. Middle Eastern Arab states

[Symbister]

 

The damage done by rockets to the civilian population of Sderot and other western Negev population centers cannot be measured only statistically in terms of dead and wounded. Studies done in recent years showed that the continued rocket fire and the large number of shock victims have led to post traumatic stress disorder among many of Sderot's residents (close to 30%). It influences their mental health and seriously damages the quality of their lives.

 

I don't doubt that it does. But imposing collective punishment on the people of Gaza, denying them water and electricity (or the equipment to allow them to fix the supplies of those things), preventing them from moving freely, and building a wall that in some cases separates farmers from their lands is likely, I would have thought, to do some pretty serious damage to their mental health and quality of life. Slaughtering Palestinians over many years at a rate of roughly 20 Palestinians for every Israeli (no wonder the writer doesn't want to focus on statistics) cannot have helped either.

 

These and similar actions led those people, in desperation, to vote for Hamas in elections that were judged fair by EU observers; and Hamas (and its militia) has been able to thrive, and fire their rockets, in a society which sees no other way out of an appalling situation. What Israel is doing now is likely to strengthen, not weaken, Hamas and build its support in previously moderate middle eastern opinion.

 

I am very doubtful if Israel genuinely wants a long-term solution, because such a solution would most likely require it to comply with UN resolutions and withdraw to something closer to the 1967 boundaries. Keeping the temperature up by repeated attacks (military or otherwise) on Palestinians is a moderately risky business, but better than the prospect of losing out through genuine negotiation. It is essential, of course, that the problem is presented as Hamas 'terrorism' rather than Israeli illegality, subjugation and inhumanity; it helps enormously that the US can be relied upon to back that interpretation and pump in as much military aid as is needed.

 

In practical terms, this isn't about religion, even if it suits some to present it that way. It's fundamentally about land and power. There are plenty of Jewish people who are appalled at Israel's conduct and it is (as far as I'm concerned) not remotely anti-semitic to criticise what Israel is doing.

 

Israel needs to withdraw to those 1967 boundaries, or something close to them; and it needs to agree to the creation of a coherent state of Palestine, which should receive the same sort of aid for construction and reconstruction as Israel has done. If these things happen, and a prosperous Palestinian state develops, support for Hamas will wither away and both Israelis and Palestinians can enjoy the peace and security that they deserve. I just wish I could believe that it'll happen.

[DamnSaxon]

Where have you seen Israel anthropomorphised like that?! ... Perhaps its just you.

Gibber, I've heard the exact phrase "Oh, poor little Israel, may she not protect herself?" used quite seriously in argument, and seen various rephrasings of the "little Israel fighting for its survival against the big, bad enemy" scenario in countless articles over ... well, the fact that there hasn't been peace in that region all my life rather makes my point. I first became really aware of what was going on in sixth form discussions shortly after the "Six Day War", and have kept a weary, rather than wary, eye on them ever since.

 

If you want a country that makes a meal its ‘little’ status look to ‘little Britain’ (... )

Hah, love the Majoresque stereotypes, but actually I entirely agree with you there. "What's left of" (formerly) Great Britain does puff itself up on the international scene quite ludicrously and makes me feel seriously embarrassed more often than anything else. How many times do you hear about our "special relationship" with the US? - mostly "special" in that they don't have to bother getting their instructions to us translated, but certainly not special enough for your average American to know what you're talking about.

 

Are you a little Englander Mr Saxon?

I hope not - I've read quite enough of the unpleasant and devious trickery which made that Britain temporarily Great to make my cringe into a reflex. Most of them would have made mincemeat of Blackadder, probably literally. I'd probably be a little Internationalist, if I didn't think that one or another lot would always be continuing the eternal struggle against their historic enemy.

 

I read a book called "The Battle for Kossovo" a few years ago. It was translated from Serbian, and over a hundred years old. Plus ca change, as our historic enemies the French say, plus c'est la meme chose. (Sorry, the accents dropped off and are rattling about inside my keyboard now.)

 

And when are the British giving the occupied territories back? Don't ask me, I have precisely the same (lack of) influence or information as anyone else outside the machine. How about:

Northern Ireland - Ask the parent Protestant community just across the water whether they could please have a word with their cousins;

The others - oh, come on, we only hang on to those to annoy the locals. Well, and the strategic positioning of course - means the Yanks might even pause to say thanks when they take 'em over. Now, that'll make us feel Great again. Shut up that person who mentioned the Chagos Islands!

 

Seriously. If Europe's Jews, after formulating a less fundamentalist Zionism, had migrated back to the Holy Land in a less violent way (the existing Palestinian Jews were as wary of them as everyone else at the time, remember, given how they arrived), if they had treated the people already living there with some respect, rather than contempt, and integrated peacefully, I would have no problem at all with that.

 

But I stand by what I said about the Israeli state's attitude from its beginnings. I'm not saying that I approve - I don't - of the Hamas guys firing rockets, no matter how small, into the settlements, no matter how illegal, but I cannot describe bombing their whole prison into rubble - while they're still struggling to live in it - as "retaliation". The Palestinians are not some arbitrary group of troublemakers - they're the people who've been driven out of their land and they have a perfectly legitimate grievance that's decades, generations now, old.

 

And whatever embarrassment I feel at my country looks pretty amateur beside that of the many thoughtful Jews who share my horror at what is being done "in their name". At least "our lot" mostly just embarrass us by strutting about looking stupid, or yapping at the American heel on yet another idiot adventure to seed a few more legitimate grievances here and there.

 

--- edit (no.2)

>> No, it's still doing it. I've typed "i-d-i-o-t" adventures in there, but got a "spoot" inserted. Is Shetlink now censoring potentially troublesome words as they go through? (Probably Mossad trying to make me look illiterate. )

[Gibber]

Gibber, I've heard the exact phrase "Oh, poor little Israel, may she not protect herself?" used quite seriously in argument,

 

I was specifically meaning the Dickensian urchin bit.

 

well, the fact that there hasn't been peace in that region all my life rather makes my point. I first became really aware of what was going on in sixth form discussions shortly after the "Six Day War",

 

Your point being that Israel is always the aggressor? That certainly was not the case in the Six Day War. Is the lack of peace in [parts of the region] solely down to Israel’s heavily armed thug mentality as you call it?

 

I'd probably be a little Internationalist, if I didn't think that one or another lot would always be continuing the eternal struggle against their historic enemy.

 

I read a book called "The Battle for Kossovo" a few years ago. It was translated from Serbian, and over a hundred years old. Plus ca change, as our historic enemies the French say, plus c'est la meme chose.

 

And yet the example of France you use as historic enemies doesn’t tally with “the more things change the more they stay the sameâ€. Unless Britain is planning on attacking France sometime soon.

 

well, the fact that there hasn't been peace in that region all my life rather makes my point.

 

There is peace in the region, with Egypt and Jordan. I don’t imagine Israel will be declaring war on these countries any more than I expect Britain to declare war on the French ‘old enemy’. As far as I can tell, peace with these countries is highly valued in Israel.

 

You’ve got to be a pretty odd kind of heavily armed thug with a seriously bad attitude to give up the Sinai in return for peace with Egypt.

 

oh, come on, we only hang on to those to annoy the locals.

 

Are you trying to laugh off Britain’s modern colonial legacy? You wouldn’t refer to Israel’s occupied territories as ‘annoying the locals’, would you?

 

Seriously. If Europe's Jews, after formulating a less fundamentalist Zionism, had migrated back to the Holy Land in a less violent way (the existing Palestinian Jews were as wary of them as everyone else at the time, remember, given how they arrived), if they had treated the people already living there with some respect, rather than contempt, and integrated peacefully, I would have no problem at all with that.

 

I’d be interested to hear more from you about this. Peaceful integration was always a part of Zionism. Perhaps you could expand on this a bit?

 

I'm not saying that I approve - I don't - of the Hamas guys firing rockets, no matter how small, into the settlements, no matter how illegal,

 

The rockets being fired are not being fired into settlements (as in Sharon’s (?) ‘facts on the ground’ settlements) but rather into sovereign Israel itself. After 2005 when Israel withdrew from Gaza there are no ‘illegal’ settlements there.

 

And whatever embarrassment I feel at my country looks pretty amateur….At least "our lot" mostly just embarrass us by strutting about looking stupid,

 

"What's left of" (formerly) Great Britain does puff itself up on the international scene quite ludicrously and makes me feel seriously embarrassed more often than anything else.

 

At what point was Britain formerly great?

 

The coalition in Iraq and Afganistan which Britain is a part of has killed how many civilians so far? Don’t try to brush that off as little Britain “strutting about looking stupidâ€, “seed[ing] a few more legitimate grievances here and there.†and making you feel seriously embarrassed while in the same breath calling Israel a heavily armed thug with a seriously bad attitude.

 

100.000 dead in Iraq so far isn’t it? Add on how many thousand for Afganistan? Shouldn’t you be horrified like you are at the Gaza conflict rather than ‘seriously embarrassed’ by this?

 

And remember these people are certainly not dead because the UK had to defend itself against missiles these countries were firing at UK citizens.

[Evil Inky]

Please tell me what part of this…

 

You don’t see a difference between a state sanctioned, Geneva conventions concordant military response to continued armed aggression from an organization whose raison d'etre is the destruction of Israel; and the British army shooting unarmed civilian demonstrators in the back?

 

…you don’t understand or don’t agree with.

Nearly all of it: collective punishment of a civilian population by dropping bombs on them isn't permissible under the Geneva conventions; the "military response" to the "armed aggression" is utterly disproportionate; and Hamas have no more chance of destroying Israel than Samoa has of invading the UK.

Most people don’t like to see civilians being killed but most people also understand that military action often leads to civilian casualties. In what way have I not made a moral distinction clear between Israel retaliating against rocket attacks and Bloody Sunday?

You haven't made a distinction at all: you've merely asserted that the British Army shooting unarmed civilians is a bad thing, but that Israel dropping bombs on unarmed civilians is a good thing.

If you still feel there is no difference between civilians being killed no matter what the circumstances or intent then I applaud the tenacity you have for a pacifist ideology and laugh at you childish mentality. Lets hope that if Samoa invades there are people around to defend you.

 

And what are the chances of Samoa invading the UK with a force of unarmed civilians ?

[Gibber]

collective punishment of a civilian population by dropping bombs on them isn't permissible under the Geneva conventions;

 

This is a military response to continued rocket attacks from the armed militia called Hamas. What would you expect any other country to do in the same situation?

 

the "military response" to the "armed aggression" is utterly disproportionate;

 

Please give some sort of practical suggestion as to what would be proportionate and effective against Hamas and its attacks.

 

and Hamas have no more chance of destroying Israel than Samoa has of invading the UK.

 

But that doesn't give them carte blanche to attack Israel with the weapons they do have though, and having a constitution that is based on the desire for genocide does make any kind of negotiation or peace impossible.

 

Its also worth noting here that Israel does have the means to destroy the Gaza strip and everyone in it but doesn't.

 

You haven't made a distinction at all: you've merely asserted that the British Army shooting unarmed civilians is a bad thing, but that Israel dropping bombs on unarmed civilians is a good thing.

 

!? I didn't say anything like that!

 

Are you perhaps deliberately misunderstanding this point? You are trying to delegitimize Israel's right to defend itself by trying to equate any civilian casualties as a result of defending itself with those of the Bloody Sunday massacre.

 

Please explain how the motivations, intents and circumstances of this conflict are similar to Bloody Sunday. Or is it just the dead civilians bit common to both scenarios you are focusing on because pictures of dead Palestinian civilians gives more emotional weight to your argument than anything you could actually reason when denying a specific sovereign state the right to defend itself.

 

Does Israel have a right to defend itself or not? If you don't think it does just say so (you wouldn't be the first) rather than trying to equate Israels defensive actions with a gruesome episode from your own country's history.

[ArabiaTerra]

Please give some sort of practical suggestion as to what would be proportionate and effective against Hamas and its attacks.

How about Israel withdraws from the West Bank, removes the illegal West Bank settlements, demolishes the illegal wall and ends the blockade of Gaza?

 

Seriously though, do you really think anything less will stop the Palestinians from fighting?

[Gibber]

Please give some sort of practical suggestion as to what would be proportionate and effective against Hamas and its attacks.

 

How about Israel withdraws from the West Bank, removes the illegal West Bank settlements, demolishes the illegal wall and ends the blockade of Gaza?

 

Seriously though, do you really think anything less will stop the Palestinians from fighting?

 

The PA perhaps, I don't think this will stop Hamas fighting. Removing the security barrier and the blockade will make it easier for Hamas to attack Israel in accordance with its charter.

 

As much as I would like Israel to be out of the West Bank and removing its settlements and a Palestinian state formed I don't really see how this is going to be an effective action against Hamas.

 

Israel withdrawing from Gaza and removing its settlements didn't stop an increase in rocket attacks.

 

Any other suggestions for practical and proportional responses to rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza? Remember, anything such as the following is off the table according to Hamas' constitution.

 

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

[DamnSaxon]

Okay.

 

The Dickensian urchin bit? - Check my original quote marks. "Poor"? "little"? "she"? - the whole deliberately emotional tone of the phrase suggests it. This is not the sort of emotionally neutral language required for rational discussion, still less conflict resolution, yet it is heard whenever Israel is threatened.

 

Israel always the aggressor? With all due respect, who bombed their way into whose country here? You can't do that and expect to be flavour of the month, can you? - Every attack on Israel is done in the spirit of driving out the invaders. From that initial invasion everything since stems.

 

The French? - So, did we achieve peace with them by bombing them into submission after invading their land, or did we do it by working together with them and making friends with them? (One thing that's always struck me as odd about our relationship with the French is that both sides find the sound of the other speaking their language un peu sexy. Strange, considering how long we spent fighting them, but that's another story.)

 

Peace with Egypt and Jordan? - Check earlier comment re. US satraps all round the area. Laugh off British colonial adventurism? Not at all. I'm quite aware that "our" real reason has a lot more to do with US strategic interests, a fact which, like so many others, makes me wince. And of course, by "our" I don't mean yours or mine - it's just the policy of the weird aliens who comprise our political class, and I don't think either of us bears any real responsibility for their stupidity.

 

Peaceful integration always a part of Zionism? In theory, maybe, but it's difficult to see how anyone planning an invasion can plan to do it "peacefully". And their subsequent history smacks more of apartheid and oppression than peaceful integration. To me, the idea of a "Jewish homeland" is as nonsensical and dangerous as that of a "Christian homeland" or a Muslim homeland" or any other "homeland" based on the elimination of everyone else. I'd rather get on amicably with a Muslim neighbour than drive him out and have him shell me - however ineffectually - from afar.

 

"Sovereign Israel"? Or "Occupied Palestine"? Depends entirely on your viewpoint, surely. Had the area in question been Shetland rather than Palestine, would you still see it as "sovereign Israel", or as "occupied Shetland"? - I suspect that the answer would depend on how much respect the invaders had shown for the indigenous culture, just as it does to the Palestinians in Palestine - and irrespective of any international declaration of its legitimacy.

 

Britain's "Greatness"? When the "sun never set", surely. And yes, I am quite aware that we weren't fluffy bunnies either, for all our high-minded talk about "civilising the natives". We had our time in the sun as brutal thugs, and we too created great gobbets of trouble and bad feeling wherever we went; however, we didn't start by building our base on someone else's country, but just invaded them from here. Oh, and yes, I know that the "Great" is a geographical term rather than a political one, for all the tosh about our "greatness" which was and is spoken.

 

As for "the coalition" ... surely that remains basically the US and its lapdog, give or take a noticeably small percentage of fellow travellers. If there's one thing which the last fifty years or so of history shows, it is that wherever there's trouble, look for the English-speaking countries. Where it used to be us, it's now the US taking the lead, but we're still meddlesome beggars who can't stand by and let other people sort out their own problems without our dispensation of (usually military, usually profitable) "wisdom".

 

Don't misunderstand me here, I am truly appalled by the numbers of dead and injured in the bogus "War On Terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm also aware that the great majority of those deaths are of the US's making rather than ours, and that the whole exercise is more to do with the US's perceived interests than UK ones. What embarrasses me is having to watch our "great and good" posing and pretending that we're still the big beast we were a hundred years ago. Embarrassment does not drive out horror, and condemning one atrocity does not in any way imply that I condone another.

 

What I completely fail to understand is how you arrive at the apparent belief that the wholesale, lethal destruction of the "world's largest open prison" is justified by the (relatively) trivial faffing about with little rockets which Hamas have been indulging in. A serious attempt to deal with that problem - given that Israel entirely controls the Gaza Strip - would surely involve no more than sending in a few agents and taking out a handful of the most militant Hamas'ers - not "teaching the whole area a lesson". The lesson the Gazans have been learning over the last week is that Israel is still their violent oppressor, and no lasting good can come of that - still less "peaceful integration". Treat people - any people - like animals, and you really can't complain if they respond by biting you.

[Evil Inky]

collective punishment of a civilian population by dropping bombs on them isn't permissible under the Geneva conventions;

 

This is a military response to continued rocket attacks from the armed militia called Hamas. What would you expect any other country to do in the same situation?

Did the British bomb Catholic neighbourhoods in response to the IRA's bombing campaign ?

You haven't made a distinction at all: you've merely asserted that the British Army shooting unarmed civilians is a bad thing, but that Israel dropping bombs on unarmed civilians is a good thing.

 

!? I didn't say anything like that!

 

Are you perhaps deliberately misunderstanding this point? You are trying to delegitimize Israel's right to defend itself by trying to equate any civilian casualties as a result of defending itself with those of the Bloody Sunday massacre.

 

Please explain how the motivations, intents and circumstances of this conflict are similar to Bloody Sunday.

Both involve(d) a powerful military force lashing out indiscriminately against a civilian population perceived to support terrorists. These sort of actions are ultimately counter-productive in that they tend to rally the targeted population against the aggressor. Oh, and by the way, many more civilians have been killed in the last ten days or so by Israel than were killed on Bloody Sunday.

Does Israel have a right to defend itself or not? If you don't think it does just say so (you wouldn't be the first) rather than trying to equate Israels defensive actions with a gruesome episode from your own country's history.

Israel has a right to defend itself. It doesn't have the right to engage in a disproportionate killing spree in the guise of defending itself.

[ArabiaTerra]

Israel withdrawing from Gaza and removing its settlements didn't stop an increase in rocket attacks.

Of course it didn't, it was less than half the job. Gaza and the West Bank are not separate entities. Israel has to withdraw completely from all the occupied territories before there will be any chance of a peaceful solution. Continuing to oppress the Palestinians and steal their land will only perpetuate the problem.

 

The Israeli's have played right into the hands of Hamas and the other extremists with this war. They can't win it. All they will do is strengthen Hamas.

[Gibber]

Did the British bomb Catholic neighbourhoods in response to the IRA's bombing campaign ?

 

Was the IRA running a fundamentalist religious dictatorship state they had illegally obtained in a bloody coup? Expressing an idea of genocidal Jihad against Britain as a founding principle? Dismissing any kind of negotiation in favor of genocide enshrined in its constitution? Controlled by another nation who's shared aims of genocide were getting closer every day their nuclear program progressed?

 

Did the IRA have many identifiable miltary targets that could be attacked?

 

Did the IRA launch thousands of rockets and mortars onto the UK mainland? If they did what do you think Britain would have done? Withdrawn their presence from NI like Israel did with Gaza?

 

Both involve(d) a powerful military force lashing out indiscriminately against a civilian population perceived to support terrorists.

 

No thats what your government's army did in Bloody Sunday. Israel is attacking an armed funamentalist militia whos existence is defined by destroying Israel. There are civilian casualties and that is tragic.

 

Oh, and by the way, many more civilians have been killed in the last ten days or so by Israel than were killed on Bloody Sunday.

 

I'm not the one arguing that the 2 events are the same though. I'm well aware that the number of dead is more in the past 10 days than during the Bloody Sunday events. I'm also aware of the other more conceptual differences between the 2 events which you are trying to say are the same.

 

Israel has a right to defend itself. It doesn't have the right to engage in a disproportionate killing spree in the guise of defending itself.

 

You still haven't said what a proportionate response would be that would be effective against Hamas' rocket attacks which you agree Israel has a right to defend against.

[Gibber]

Gaza and the West Bank are not separate entities. Israel has to withdraw completely from all the occupied territories before there will be any chance of a peaceful solution.

 

But Hamas and the PA are seperate entities on some very fundamental levels.

 

If they were the same the recent request by Palestinian leader Abas to stop the rocket fire into Israel might have been granted.

 

The Israeli's have played right into the hands of Hamas and the other extremists with this war. They can't win it. All they will do is strengthen Hamas.

 

This may indeed be the case.

[EM]

In particular how do you reconcile the fact that the Israeli state was built using exactly the same terrorist strategies and tactics employed against them now?

To say Israel was built using terrorist strategies [alone] is not accurate, terrorist acts were used however.

Who is saying that Israel was built using terrorist strategies alone? I didn't. I make the point that such strategies were widely used by the Zionists who went on to run the state. This is no historical curiosity but a highly pertinant aspect of the current Zionist establishment.

 

The military action in which the Palestinians died is a direct response to quassam (and mortar) attacks.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, which happens in the Middle East is a direct result of anything. The situation is so complex and the back-stories so convoluted that every action can be (reasonably or unreasonably) justified or denounced due to some other event or situation. You make exactly this argument when I point out that the Zionist leaders are self-acknowledged terrorists, claiming that it is more complex. With the Gazza launched rockets though, suddenly you find it simple and unconnected to the wider political and historical context. Naive indeed.

 

 

One example in which Jewish terrorist strategies..

Please, Zionist terrorist strategies. You are tarring the race and people with the sins of the extremists.

 

 

How about a little quiz.

1. Who said: ...

So, no response to my quiz yet. Was it too simple? Want the answers?

[Gibber]

Who is saying that Israel was built using terrorist strategies alone? I didn't.

 

In particular how do you reconcile the fact that the Israeli state was built using exactly the same terrorist strategies and tactics employed against them now?

 

This statement actually can be read as terrorist strategies alone created the Jewish State as you are making no reference to other activities. Although I did assume you meant that Israel wasn’t built using terrorist strategies alone there are enough people on this thread all too ready to label everything Israel does as a terrorist act to let borderline ambiguous statements like yours above remain unqualified. So I added ‘[alone]’ to your quote.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing, which happens in the Middle East is a direct result of anything. The situation is so complex and the back-stories so convoluted that every action can be (reasonably or unreasonably) justified or denounced due to some other event or situation. You make exactly this argument when I point out that the Zionist leaders are self-acknowledged terrorists, claiming that it is more complex. With the Gazza launched rockets though, suddenly you find it simple and unconnected to the wider political and historical context. Naive indeed.

 

I agree with that. When Israel is blamed alone (as it has been in this thread) for the deaths of civilians in this current conflict with no reference to the wider situation and emotive pictures of dead Palestinians posted as the be all and end all of any debate on the subject then I’m compelled to redress the balance a bit by expanding the focus of the current situation to include Hamas’ rocket activities over the past 3 years.

 

This of course is still a limited view of the larger issues and conflicts in the ME. Although still acres more scope than some of the people persecuting Israel alone on this thread are prepared to address.

 

I look forward to you pointing out their naivety like you have with mine. Perhaps you would like to do this with Arabia Terra's posted link to pictures of dead Palestinians? Or do you find that simple and unconnected to the wider political and historical context?

 

Please, Zionist terrorist strategies. You are tarring the race and people with the sins of the extremists.

 

I was using 'Jewish' as a pragmatic label to make my statement clear about which side was perpetrating these specific terrorist acts, not as a reflection on the Jews as a race.

 

Please, by the same token Zionist terrorist strategies is tarring a cultural movement/project with the sins of the extremists. Zionists are not all terrorist extremists any more than Jews as a race, are as you pointed out, to be tarred with the extremist brush.

 

Perhaps I should have said; those Jews who had arrived in Palestine at that time or those members of established Jewish communities who were already living in Palestine, who were so driven by the desire for a Jewish state (Zionism), decided to undertake terrorist strategies alongside mainstream Zionist activity to acheive this. Less pragmatic but perhaps more correct?

 

So, no response to my quiz yet. Was it too simple? Want the answers?

 

I took this to be a rhetorical device that you were using to reinforce your point that a certain number of those Jews who had arrived in Palestine at that time or those members of established Jewish communities who were already living in Palestine were so driven by the desire for a Jewish state (Zionism), decided to undertake terrorist strategies alongside mainstream Zionist activity.

 

Could you give the answers to you quiz and how you feel they relate to Israel. I get the feeling you regard Israel as a country born from an extremist ideology. Perhaps not a legitimate country because of this?

[Gibber]

The Dickensian urchin bit? - Check my original quote marks……

 

I get it! I was just wondering if Dickensian urchin was literally written down somewhere and published when describing Israel.

 

Israel always the aggressor? With all due respect, who bombed their way into whose country here? You can't do that and expect to be flavour of the month, can you? - Every attack on Israel is done in the spirit of driving out the invaders. From that initial invasion everything since stems.

 

With all due respect it wasn’t some kind of strike force of elite Zionist commandos leaping from landing craft aided by US close air support lobbing bombs at the population of Palestine in 1948.

 

The Jewish presence in the area was made up of made up of thousands of Holocaust survivors and refugees from Europe who made their way there, the already in situ Jewish population made up of Jews of which there has been a presence since biblical times and Jews who had immigrated both legally and illegally.

 

Peaceful integration always a part of Zionism? In theory, maybe, but it's difficult to see how anyone planning an invasion can plan to do it "peacefully".

 

What do you regard as the planned invasion?

 

Zionism goes back to Jews legally buying farm land in Palestine, (I hope you wouldn’t deny Jews the right to buy land in a foreign nation). This to me seems like peaceful integration not invasion.

 

I’ve already mentioned a few posts back in this thread about the terrorist element in the formation of Israel that bombed targets such as the King David Hotel. Is it these militant actions you regard as bombing their way into the country?

 

If you are considering the Israeli War of Independence to be the ‘invasion’? You might want to look at who rejected the Palestinian partition plan leading to this war and who accepted it.

 

who bombed their way into whose country here?

 

Whose country indeed?! Britain had the mandate over Palestine at the time. I think they regarded it as a suburb of Guildford or something.

 

The French? - So, did we achieve peace with them by bombing them into submission after invading their land, or did we do it by working together with them and making friends with them?

 

Yes the French, who you referred to as the ‘old enemy’ when using a French saying to help make the point that traditional conflict lines throughout history are immutable as in the case of the Serbian book you read. You failed to note that France and the UK are very close allies now, thereby providing an example directly counter to the point you were trying to make within that very same paragraph.

 

"Making friends with France"?...or........purchasing an expensive federated bureaucracy precisely because the countries of Europe cannot make friends with each other on their own. I'm all for an EU type bureaucracy in the ME if it ensures peace but don't be under the illusion that Britian is on the vanguard of an enlightened peaceful international crusade towards utopia that Israel can learn from, just because you haven't bombed Paris in the past fortnight.

 

Peace with Egypt and Jordan? - Check earlier comment re. US satraps all round the area

 

And yet, it is still peace, overcoming the Arab/Jew divide you are trying to say is immutable and avoiding civilian deaths that you find so horrifying. So a good thing you would likely agree.

 

And their subsequent history smacks more of apartheid and oppression than peaceful integration.

 

Israel has a 20% Arab population, these Israeli Arabs share the same legal status and freedoms as Israeli Jews and as a result have some of the greatest levels of freedom in the Arab world.

 

A level of freedom surpassed in the Arab world only by a small super rich ruling oil elite who strut around places like Saudi Arabia impersonating the British colonial gentry.

 

To me, the idea of a "Jewish homeland" is as nonsensical and dangerous as that of a "Christian homeland" or a Muslim homeland" or any other "homeland" based on the elimination of everyone else. I'd rather get on amicably with a Muslim neighbour than drive him out and have him shell me - however ineffectually - from afar.

 

But there are plenty of Christian nations and Muslim nations. If the Christian homelands of Europe hadn’t been so enthusiastic in their elimination of their Jewish populations then the idea of a Jewish homeland might not have been so vital. There may still have been Zionism but perhaps no Israeli state.

 

And Israel wasn’t created based on the elimination of everyone else. Look to your own country’s exploits for the elimination of others.

 

"Sovereign Israel"? Or "Occupied Palestine"? Depends entirely on your viewpoint, surely. Had the area in question been Shetland rather than Palestine, would you still see it as "sovereign Israel", or as "occupied Shetland"? - I suspect that the answer would depend on how much respect the invaders had shown for the indigenous culture, just as it does to the Palestinians in Palestine - and irrespective of any international declaration of its legitimacy.

 

What historical and cultural links do Jews have to Shetland? How was Shetland not a part of an established state in 1948?

 

Palestine wasn’t a sovereign nation in 1948 and it never has been. Britain was responsible for this area under mandate after the end of the Ottoman Empire. If this is how far you want to go back when you talk about indigenous then you should be arguing to give Palestine back to Turkey.

 

Under the Roman occupation this area was renamed Palestine from Judea to try to disassociate it from the indigenous Jewish population after they revolted. So be careful how far back you go when you talk about indigenous populations and indigenous cultures. You might accidentally stumble upon a long and ancient history of a people, religion and culture intertwined with the geographic location which you now regard those same people as having invaded and stolen in 1948.

 

Go back to the 60s if you want to apply the label ‘indigenous’ to the current population of the West Bank and Gaza. That’s when they started to label themselves as Palestinians.*

 

*This in no way means that I don’t want to see a Palestinian sovereign state formed today with the current indigenous population.

 

What I completely fail to understand is how you arrive at the apparent belief that the wholesale, lethal destruction of the "world's largest open prison" is justified by the (relatively) trivial faffing about with little rockets which Hamas have been indulging in.

 

Don’t try to trivialise these attacks. You would be screaming for action from your government if they were landing in your town.

 

But you don’t have to worry about such things actually happening in reality. You're safe where you are so you have the luxury of condemning attacks on Hamas because of the civilian casualties and the luxury of not having to worry about ever being a civilian casualty from rocket attack.

 

Good for you.

 

Perhaps the gratitude you feel because of this to your Queen and country explains why you pay lip service to denouncing Britain's colonial legacy and 'war on terror' and save the real vitriol for Israel?

 

A serious attempt to deal with that problem - given that Israel entirely controls the Gaza Strip - would surely involve no more than sending in a few agents and taking out a handful of the most militant Hamas'ers - not "teaching the whole area a lesson".

 

Israel doesn’t control the Gaza Strip. So this is essentially targeted assassinations you are suggesting Israel goes back to, to stop the rocket attacks?