Israel/Gaza Conflict

[opel80uk]

As I said at the start of this thread,

And, In both my first two posts, while I depore civilian casualties on both sides, AND in othsr conflicts, the casualties in which make the totals in this latest round look tiny in comoarison, for the combatants (and those includes authorities on both sides giving orders), a pox on both their houses.

There have been so many attempts at peace talks, so much international effort, and what has it achieved? Nothing, that I can see. And even if the current ceasefire sticks, in a few months or a few years, we'll be right back here again.

Again, while I deplore the civilian casualties, I'm bored rigid by the perennial bloodshed between two parties neither of whom seem to want peace. There's nothing I can do about it, and for all the prognsticating by the government, and. moral outrage from the , ikes of Miliband, nothing the UK can do about it.

So, beyond that regret for civilans, I've given up caring what they do, or try their best to do, to each other.

I’ve no issue with that, but anyone reading your quick view of why you find it hard to take sides in your opening post would struggle, IMO, to be in any doubt that you have already taken sides, cemented by your penultimate paragraph:

‘It takes two sides to productively talk, and I can't see any signs, over years and years, that Hamas has any interest in any peace with Israel. They just want it destroyed, like their charter says’

Whilst I understand you have no real interest in discussing this topic, I would find it interesting to know what signs you have seen over the years that tell you Israel has any real interest in peace, certainly enough to make you feel that the responsibility lies with Hamas, because I have definitely missed them.

As for it being ignored, or for people not caring beyond regret, I guess that’s a fair enough viewpoint for one to take. I’d be interested to know if those expressing or advocating that would be as quick to express that sentiment that if the civilian casualties were reversed.

[HalloweenJack]

why are there no sanctions against Israel? happy to put sanctions on Russia and iran - but why not Israel?? the regime in the Knesset care little for `opinion`. only economic sanctions will hurt them to stop the genocide.

[peterb]

why are there no sanctions against Israel? happy to put sanctions on Russia and iran - but why not Israel?? the regime in the Knesset care little for `opinion`. only economic sanctions will hurt them to stop the genocide.

HAMAS keeping to the ceasefire would also stop the counter-attacks by Israel. The last two ior three cease fires brokered by Egypt were broken within hours by HAMAS. There is also the question of the legitimacy of HAMAS as the representative of the Palestinian State. Government functions are exercised by the Palestinian Authority, which is distinct (at least in name) from HAMAS. HMAS's stated aim is the destruction of Israel, so the Israeli Government is exercising its function to defend its people.

Whether that force is proportionate is a matter for debate - it has superior firepower - but it has been reactive rather than proactive in attacking HAMAS.

Fortunately there is another ceasefire in place at the moment - I hope that HAMAS do not break this one before a more lasting peace can be negotiated. However, given HAMAs's stated position, I fear it will not.

[Saracen]

I’ve no issue with that, but anyone reading your quick view of why you find it hard to take sides in your opening post would struggle, IMO, to be in any doubt that you have already taken sides, cemented by your penultimate paragraph:

‘It takes two sides to productively talk, and I can't see any signs, over years and years, that Hamas has any interest in any peace with Israel. They just want it destroyed, like their charter says’

Whilst I understand you have no real interest in discussing this topic, I would find it interesting to know what signs you have seen over the years that tell you Israel has any real interest in peace, certainly enough to make you feel that the responsibility lies with Hamas, because I have definitely missed them.

As for it being ignored, or for people not caring beyond regret, I guess that’s a fair enough viewpoint for one to take. I’d be interested to know if those expressing or advocating that would be as quick to express that sentiment that if the civilian casualties were reversed.

Well, because I've watched numerous peace initiatives come and go, international leaders come and go, (US) Presidents come and go. Carter, in particular, has pretty much made a life's work of trying to sort the mess and come up with a solution. Fatah have been prepared to talk, even Arafat was prepared to talk. Hamas, I see NO sign that they want to talk, or want an agreement, and they have no intention of taking notice of such peace efforts. They recognise one and ONLY one solution to this - Jihad.

I don't regard Israel as blameless. Far from it. I think the attitude of settlers encroaching ever further is disgraceful, and a major part of the stumbling block with Fatah, etc, for obvious reasons.

So no, I haven't taken sides. But I do draw a distinction between two issues. One, stopping the fighting and killing, recognising that whatever the historical issues, we are where we are. It is a simple fact that Israel is there, and wishing it's utter destruction IS going to prevent a solution that stops the killing.

Second, any solution that cedes ANY ground to Israel is an ideological anathema to Hamas. Israel, on the other hand, wants peace and security for it's citizens and is prepared to deal. Any chance of a long-term solution requires acknowledge of peace and security to both sides, and that is contradictory to Hasas' fundamental ideology.

Suppose we get into a fist-fight. You decide to stop, and keep trying to break off, but I'm determined to beat you into a bloody pulp, come what may, and won't stop, won't talk and won't let you disengage. You leave, I follow. You get away, I come looking for you. You "turn the other cheek" and I hit, and hit, and hit ..... for 50 years. Is it possible to reach an agreement? Or, sooner or later, would you reach the conclusion that you'd better fight back, and that unless you can physically prevent me, I am going go beat you to death, and nothing is going to stop me trying.

Are Israelis faultless? Hell no. But they're a lot more pragmatic than Hamas. Could Israel and Fatah reach agreement? Probably, if Hamas didn't keep poisoning any chance. Could Israelis and Palestinians live together? Given peace, security and prosperity for both, they could, or at least could have. But the longer the violence goes on, the less the chances of that. And that, of course, suits Hamas perfectly.

I have no sides on who is right and who is wrong. I am, however, convinced that Hamas has no interest in a solution, or in genuinely taking part in international talks.

[opel80uk]

HAMAS keeping to the ceasefire would also stop the counter-attacks by Israel. The last two ior three cease fires brokered by Egypt were broken within hours by HAMAS. There is also the question of the legitimacy of HAMAS as the representative of the Palestinian State. Government functions are exercised by the Palestinian Authority, which is distinct (at least in name) from HAMAS. HMAS's stated aim is the destruction of Israel, so the Israeli Government is exercising its function to defend its people.

Whether that force is proportionate is a matter for debate - it has superior firepower - but it has been reactive rather than proactive in attacking HAMAS.

Fortunately there is another ceasefire in place at the moment - I hope that HAMAS do not break this one before a more lasting peace can be negotiated. However, given HAMAs's stated position, I fear it will not.

How do you know it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire?

[Saracen]

....

As for it being ignored, or for people not caring beyond regret, I guess that’s a fair enough viewpoint for one to take. I’d be interested to know if those expressing or advocating that would be as quick to express that sentiment that if the civilian casualties were reversed.

I see no dufference between innocent dead Palestinians and innocent dead Israelis, and a dead child is a dead child, no matter color, race, creed or nationality.

But I, sadly, don't see any end to the Palestinian conflictvwith Israel. I've been watching basically the same thing, over and over sgain, for 50 years, and I don't see anything that has, or realistically can, change it in future.

So yes, I'd also be bored out of caring, beyond regret for innocent casualties, if the numbers were reversed. As far as I'm concerned, I hope they sort it out, but I've not got the slighest interest in watching every attempt, because I don't think they will. I was born with this fight going on, and I'm convinced I'll die with it going on. I certainly don't intend to spend much of my remaing breath worrying about it.

[opel80uk]

Well, because I've watched numerous peace initiatives come and go, international leaders come and go, (US) Presidents come and go. Carter, in particular, has pretty much made a life's work of trying to sort the mess and come up with a solution. Fatah have been prepared to talk, even Arafat was prepared to talk. Hamas, I see NO sign that they want to talk, or want an agreement, and they have no intention of taking notice of such peace efforts. They recognise one and ONLY one solution to this - Jihad.

I don't regard Israel as blameless. Far from it. I think the attitude of settlers encroaching ever further is disgraceful, and a major part of the stumbling block with Fatah, etc, for obvious reasons.

So no, I haven't taken sides. But I do draw a distinction between two issues. One, stopping the fighting and killing, recognising that whatever the historical issues, we are where we are. It is a simple fact that Israel is there, and wishing it's utter destruction IS going to prevent a solution that stops the killing.

Second, any solution that cedes ANY ground to Israel is an ideological anathema to Hamas. Israel, on the other hand, wants peace and security for it's citizens and is prepared to deal. Any chance of a long-term solution requires acknowledge of peace and security to both sides, and that is contradictory to Hasas' fundamental ideology.

Suppose we get into a fist-fight. You decide to stop, and keep trying to break off, but I'm determined to beat you into a bloody pulp, come what may, and won't stop, won't talk and won't let you disengage. You leave, I follow. You get away, I come looking for you. You "turn the other cheek" and I hit, and hit, and hit ..... for 50 years. Is it possible to reach an agreement? Or, sooner or later, would you reach the conclusion that you'd better fight back, and that unless you can physically prevent me, I am going go beat you to death, and nothing is going to stop me trying.

Are Israelis faultless? Hell no. But they're a lot more pragmatic than Hamas. Could Israel and Fatah reach agreement? Probably, if Hamas didn't keep poisoning any chance. Could Israelis and Palestinians live together? Given peace, security and prosperity for both, they could, or at least could have. But the longer the violence goes on, the less the chances of that. And that, of course, suits Hamas perfectly.

I have no sides on who is right and who is wrong. I am, however, convinced that Hamas has no interest in a solution, or in genuinely taking part in international talks.

Again, your analogy is misleading because you have omitted the part where I want to kill me because I am now living in your home, whilst keeping you locked in my garage. Furthermore, you want to build your own house next to the house where you used to live, and I keep not only blocking it, but have started building my kids house there too. Then, to top it off, when you do hit me, I suggest that it is you that is the obstacle to us living peacefully together. It’s laughable.

Your painting of Israel as a pragmatic partner willing to make concessions and Hamas as the obstructive party with only ideological goals is, IMO, extremely naïve, but let’s say you are right and Hamas will only settle on Israel being destroyed. If Israel’s sole aim is to live in peace like you seem to believe, why is it that they have been unable to achieve that when dealing with moderate opposition, compared to what they deal with now? Are you seriously suggesting it was Hamas that stopped that, every time? And when you say that Israel is prepared to deal, is that notwithstanding the position of successive Israeli Governments of refusing to ever recognise a Palestinian state? What sort of deal would that look like then exactly? A rubbish one I would have thought, if you’re Palestinian.

[pp05]

To be fair to Hamas they did ask why the need for a new ceasefire since they already had one in place in 2012, an agreement that the US has failed to enforce and lost credibility.

Part of me thinks this is all just international grand standing for foreign politicians.

[neonplanet40]

HAMAS keeping to the ceasefire would also stop the counter-attacks by Israel. The last two ior three cease fires brokered by Egypt were broken within hours by HAMAS. There is also the question of the legitimacy of HAMAS as the representative of the Palestinian State. Government functions are exercised by the Palestinian Authority, which is distinct (at least in name) from HAMAS. HMAS's stated aim is the destruction of Israel, so the Israeli Government is exercising its function to defend its people.

Whether that force is proportionate is a matter for debate - it has superior firepower - but it has been reactive rather than proactive in attacking HAMAS.

Fortunately there is another ceasefire in place at the moment - I hope that HAMAS do not break this one before a more lasting peace can be negotiated. However, given HAMAs's stated position, I fear it will not.

The last I heard, HAMAS was not actually represented at the talks of a ceasefire, nor consulted? Hard to abide by something you have not agreed too.

[j1979]

Well, no one on the forum is from Palestine, so nothing has been said. On the Ukraine thread, we had someone from Ukraine or someone who thinks he is Ukrainian as his wife is from Ukraine ( never understood this ! ) and he kept on posting.

No need for a little dig.

I'm 100% sure I'm not Ukrainian.

What makes you English? Or Scottish? Or Yorkshirish?

We've been conquered so many times, in the last ~2000 years we've been Italian, Scandinavian, Celtic, Germanic hell even French. But we still have our identity based on our geographic location, not our racial heritage.

I don't think we have ever been conquered by the Italians or the French

To be fair to Hamas they did ask why the need for a new ceasefire since they already had one in place in 2012, an agreement that the US has failed to enforce and lost credibility.

Part of me thinks this is all just international grand standing for foreign politicians.

I thought they fire rockets into Israel after the retaliation murders and beatings of Palestinians? I might be wrong there. But I thought the recent flare up happened like this... 3 Israeli boys killed, then Palestinians beaten and 1 murdered, followed by scuffles and then rockets fired into Israel.


-----------

Some historians believe Philistines and the modern Palestinians to be more or less the same people. The old testament / torah many mentions of war between the Israelites and the Philistines. The mandate means nothing, this place has been and will be at war forever! Jewish immigration and war in Palestine / Israel was inevitable whether the west supported Zionism or not. The only difference would have been a new holocaust, had the west not had Zionistic tendencies. The Jews would have been all but wiped out if they did not get support. After all they were being massacred in pogroms long before Nazis were around.

Its terrible what is happening, there is so much hate on both sides, and the whole region has been unstable since the dawn of history. Mix in the birth of 2 first monotheistic religions and a 3rd just down the road, and the geographical meeting point of 3 continents.

History of civilization started in this part of the world, and one ill conceived drawing of the boarders by the current power broker means nothing. The whole area has been a powder keg for over 4 thousand years. Why would it suddenly stop in our lifetimes!?

Maybe for every American or European Jew that moves to Israel for the Zionist cause, you will find Palestinian that does not want to leave Gaza even if they were offered a new peaceful life. Many on both sides are full of hate, fanatical and both sides hold a valid claim to the land.

[Saracen]

Again, your analogy is misleading because you have omitted the part where I want to kill me because I am now living in your home, whilst keeping you locked in my garage. Furthermore, you want to build your own house next to the house where you used to live, and I keep not only blocking it, but have started building my kids house there too. Then, to top it off, when you do hit me, I suggest that it is you that is the obstacle to us living peacefully together. It’s laughable.

Your painting of Israel as a pragmatic partner willing to make concessions and Hamas as the obstructive party with only ideological goals is, IMO, extremely naïve, but let’s say you are right and Hamas will only settle on Israel being destroyed. If Israel’s sole aim is to live in peace like you seem to believe, why is it that they have been unable to achieve that when dealing with moderate opposition, compared to what they deal with now? Are you seriously suggesting it was Hamas that stopped that, every time? And when you say that Israel is prepared to deal, is that notwithstanding the position of successive Israeli Governments of refusing to ever recognise a Palestinian state? What sort of deal would that look like then exactly? A rubbish one I would have thought, if you’re Palestinian.

Look, you asked specific questions because you "wanted to know" and I answered, but what part of "don't want to discuss it" don't you understand?

Again and again, you call my comments naive because it's reflecting PART of the situation, and atttibute views to me that I don't have, didn't express and expect me to justify them. Hamas is dead set against any negotiation. Jihad and Jihad only. That, and that alone, is why I see them as the main problem. And that IS their position.

Beyond that, I'm not in the least interested in discussing who did what to whom, when, why and which rabid dogs are the most rabid, because I don't have any time for EITHER side in this conflict. Beyond the limitations I've already mentioned, I really don't care what they do to each other.

[opel80uk]

Look, you asked specific questions because you "wanted to know" and I answered, but what part of "don't want to discuss it" don't you understand?

Again and again, you call my comments naive because it's reflecting PART of the situation, and atttibute views to me that I don't have, didn't express and expect me to justify them. Hamas is dead set against any negotiation. Jihad and Jihad only. That, and that alone, is why I see them as the main problem. And that IS their position.

Beyond that, I'm not in the least interested in discussing who did what to whom, when, why and which rabid dogs are the most rabid, because I don't have any time for EITHER side in this conflict. Beyond the limitations I've already mentioned, I really don't care what they do to each other.

Oh I understand it, but in your previous post you asked me a question, and I responded. What I didn’t understand it was entirely rhetorical.

Whilst I’m not instructing or telling anyone what to do, lest I be banned, it might be better for someone, if they are not interested in discussing a particular topic, to not post in the first place or, if they want to post and then not to be challenged on the obvious position they’ve taken (whilst claiming to have not taken a position), to ask for the facility to reply to a post to be removed, if at all possible. Especially if their opening post is loaded with numerous questions.

[TheAnimus]

I don't think we have ever been conquered by the Italians or the French

43 and 1066 spring to mind. My point is, we do not use genealogy to determine that we are "British", in fact we consider anyone who would to be rather racist.

[Saracen]

Oh I understand it, but in your previous post you asked me a question, and I responded. What I didn’t understand it was entirely rhetorical.

Whilst I’m not instructing or telling anyone what to do, lest I be banned, it might be better for someone, if they are not interested in discussing a particular topic, to not post in the first place or, if they want to post and then not to be challenged on the obvious position they’ve taken (whilst claiming to have not taken a position), to ask for the facility to reply to a post to be removed, if at all possible. Especially if their opening post is loaded with numerous questions.

You asked why I felt certain things, like would it be the same if the casualties sere reversed. I did the courtesy of answering that. That does not imply that, having said repeatedly I don't want to discuss it, I'm inviting another series of challenges, of questions.

But I don't appreciate being called a liar. And telling me I've obviously taken a position then claiming not have is doing exactly that.

So if you want to avoid being banned, stop. You are on very thin ice.

[opel80uk]

You asked why I felt certain things, like would it be the same if the casualties sere reversed. I did the courtesy of answering that. That does not imply that, having said repeatedly I don't want to discuss it, I'm inviting another series of challenges, of questions.

But I don't appreciate being called a liar. And telling me I've obviously taken a position then claiming not have is doing exactly that.

So if you want to avoid being banned, stop. You are on very thin ice.

I'm hardly calling you a liar. I'm saying that your posts clearly suggest you have taken a position, and others can be the judge of whether they do or not. That you then feel they don’t suggest you have taken a position, or that I am wrong about them is fine, but that’s completely different to me calling you a liar, which I wouldn’t do because I don’t think that you are (in fact, that notion didn’t even occur to me). If I was to say someone’s post might be racist and they then disagree, am I calling them a liar because I say I do think it’s racist? Of course I’m not.

If you wish to ban me, and it’s within your power, than ban me, but don’t expect me to just accept you telling me I’m calling you a liar when it’s clear I’m doing no such thing. You being Admin, there’s no need to use frivolous interpretation of what I’m saying to do it.

[j1979]

43 and 1066 spring to mind. My point is, we do not use genealogy to determine that we are "British", in fact we consider anyone who would to be rather racist.

I'm not even sure what British is, as the debate rages in Scotland, a large proportion of Scots seems to have forgotten the first Stuart King of England. A number there want to identify with being, Celtic or Pictish and don't feel British at all. And who can blame them? Calling them racist is just crazy.

The Romans aren't Italian, really in any way, it's an assumption that many seem to make, as Rome lies within modern day Italy. But the Romans are almost certainly from the Balkans, closely related to the Greeks, and are probably originally from Troy. The modern decedents are more than likely from Romania. The modern Italians are mix of tribes, sure there will be a small amount of Roman too, but it's not significant. Some Italians like to think of themselves as Roman.

and 1066 was the Normans. In modern English "North Man". The Normans were not French, they were from the fjords of Norway, and they were "Norseman" Vikings that adopted a french based Feudal system and the aristocracy of this new system spoke mainly French. They are not in any way French.

Anyway im totally off topic. so sorry.

As for the Palestinians and the Israelites, there are far too many factors for them to ever make peace. Especially while HAMAS are around. For a group of people that have suffered persecution for 100's of years in the world, to be in a situation where, their neighbors, if strong enough, would inflict another holocaust, is the most challenging. Here if you want to use the word Racist it's appropriate. Masses of the Israeli population hate Arabs, and vice versa. Not every Jew is a murderer and not every Palestinian is a terrorist, but it's difficult to convince the other side of that.

Personally I think the solution needs to be radical. Because even in the west bank where the situation is much better, Israelis are still making illegal settlements, and Palestinians are still selling land to settlers for big profits. Even without the guns and tanks the chance for acceptance is slim. Surely if the world really tried they could find a radical solution, the key lies in America.