Pleased to support a Palestine Solidarity demonstration today,passionate speeches of dreadful stories."You don't need to be a Moslem to care about Gaza,you just have to be a human". Peace, brothers and sisters.
There is a war on.. and you let the kids go play on the beach..makes sense..only to an idiot
You think all the 300 kids butchered by Israel in Gaza were "playing on the beach"? Or is it the case that the vast majority were sheltering in UNWRA schools, or their own homes. and still got turned into cat-food?
Who is the idiot here?
OK, last comment for today. We all remember the "Is Genocide Permissible" op-ed in the Times of Israel yesterday (hastily withdrawn) which advocated the extermination of Gazans.
Now the Jerusalem Post has joined in. The most important English language paper in the country. Under the headline Why Gaza Must Go the author (a senior Israeli defence analyst) decides that it is time to completely "dismantle Gaza", kill anyone who resists, and then "relocate the non-belligerent Gazans" out of the country altogether - i.e. ethnically cleanse the Strip once and for all, ridding it of Arabs.
He does not suggest where the Gazans might go, perhaps the sea?
Israel is descending into psychosis. The spectacle is compelling but horrific.
Shalom.
I read the now deleted Jerusalem Post article. I do not agree with it, but despite the title it did not advocate genocide. It did advocate the deportation from Gaza of all who opposed the Israeli state, and replacement by Jewish settlers. It also interestingly advocated giving any Palestinian who wished to remain and accept that Israel is a Jewish state full rights as Israeli citizens, including the right to peaceful democratic representation in a single state.
I do not agree, but that is far more reasonable than Hamas proposals for treatment of Israelis.
Yep the Israelis could open their own versions of Belsen and Auschwitz .
Vile.
Yes the Israeli child murderers are Vile
Yes, they are. But so was your comment.
I can understand the emotion that what is happening raises and the helpless anger. But neither the Israeli people nor the country's leaders are intent on genocide. To claim that they are only helps those pushing the hardest line in Israel because it provides them ammunition with which to dishonestly portray all criticism of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic.
ST You were specifacally citing the incident where four children were playing on the beac..being targetted by the Israeli's..you did not mention the ones killed in the city..Anyone who lets their children go and play on a beach when there is a war raging just a short distance away, is, in my opinion..an idiot.
ST You were specifacally citing the incident where four children were playing on the beac..being targetted by the Israeli's..you did not mention the ones killed in the city..Anyone who lets their children go and play on a beach when there is a war raging just a short distance away, is, in my opinion..an idiot.
That does not make it acceptable to target clearly identifiable children and to kill them.
I rarely get worked up about other peoples' ethnic conflicts, these days. They're usually six of one and half a dozen of the other. Israel/Palestine is a good example.
The Gaza debate is getting quite heated today, though not quite at farmers' market levels yet.
There used to be an Israeli opposition. Netanyahu used to be an extremist. When did all of Israel row in behind indiscriminate slaughter?
I doubt Israelis are all supporting "indiscriminate slaughter", but I do think they are all fed up to the back teeth with Hamas, and seemingly no sane solution.
In this country, as mass immigration has become more and more of a problem for some people, then UKIP has become more popular. But you wouldn't say that all British citizens support "indiscriminate deportation", would you?
It is a natural reaction as a problem goes on for people to become more hard-line in their attitudes.
In this country, as mass immigration has become more and more of a problem for some people, then UKIP has become more popular. But you wouldn't say that all British citizens support "indiscriminate deportation", would you?
No, I wouldnt. Because they dont. I was commenting on the seeming lack of an Israeli opposition to the current indiscriminate slaughter. There used to be a sensible / moderate wing in Israeli politics. It doesnt seem to be there today.
SO..the idea that an army Officer ..deep within Israel, would "Clearly identify" the group on the beach as children and then give the order to kill them is ludicrous
Tories & UKIP election pact ? Deal or no deal ? I cannot see it. Farage will want to see whether UKIP can win a few seats and a double digit share of the vote. Cameron won't be interested, as I think he believes that the Tories can win a majority without doing any deal with UKIP.
With Camerons comments on UKIP and some of the issues that have come up in recent times, I would think that the Tories would never want to become involved.
Yep the Israelis could open their own versions of Belsen and Auschwitz .
Hamas is an organisation that has written the obligation to commit genocide on the Jews into it's own damn constitution, but according to Mark Senior it's the Israelis who are the Nazis. Yeah, right.
Look I know the LibDems are the party that gave us Jenny Tonge and David Ward, but I thought they at least tried to pretend to be embarrassed about being associated with this sort of thing?
It is a natural reaction as a problem goes on for people to become more hard-line in their attitudes.
For me this is a sign that for a growing number of people, the 'international community' is not working. Israel has sat there for the last forty years whilst one internationalist politico after another has urged caution, inserted themselves as mediator, and failed to engineer even the beginnings of a solution.The rockets keep coming.
And so Israel has finally said ''we'll do what we want''.
Australia's election is another example. You know what??? two fingers to the IPCC and s*d your carbon tax.
UKIP is another manifestation of this. The UK's network of internationalist treaties and obligations does not work for their supporters. They couldn;t give a hoot if we smashed the whole thing up and became a 'pariah state'
The Gaza debate is getting quite heated today, though not quite at farmers' market levels yet.
There used to be an Israeli opposition. Netanyahu used to be an extremist. When did all of Israel row in behind indiscriminate slaughter?
Its a decades long process, starting with the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin. Basically the Israeli state regards any lefty as a traitor so every left wing party must be undermined, destroyed or controlled.
I give you the example of the last Israeli election, the state after a decade trying to destroy the Labour party with constant funding of defections and splitter parties and plant leaders that allied with them was facing a resurgent peace loving Labour under Shelly Yachimovich the first leader that Labour had that was not controlled by the state since Peres. So what did Netanyahu do was he created a new party just before the election with TV presenter Yair Lapid to eat into the Labour vote and merged Likud with Beiteinu, it worked. He was back in power and he succesfully ousted Yachimovich and installed another plant as Labour leader.
That strategy is basically followed since the Oslo peace accords. If your prefered party is not popular you create a new one with the same people to eat into the opposition, so you can stay in power.
SO..the idea that an army Officer ..deep within Israel, would "Clearly identify" the group on the beach as children and then give the order to kill them is ludicrous
Yep the Israelis could open their own versions of Belsen and Auschwitz .
Hamas is an organisation that has written the obligation to commit genocide on the Jews into it's own damn constitution, but according to Mark Senior it's the Israelis who are the Nazis. Yeah, right.
Look I know the LibDems are the party that gave us Jenny Tonge and David Ward, but I thought they at least tried to pretend to be embarrassed about being associated with this sort of thing?
Back in the day, the Liberals were the party of choice for Jews. It's how Sir Percy Harris held on so long in Bethnal Green, and how they began their revival in local government by winning Finchley Council.
Time for The Israeli PM to face a war crimes trial - in absentia if he is too frit to turn up and defend himself .
Israel, like the United States of America, has wisely decided not to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Israel and america and in far too many wars to risk an american president (cough George W. cough) and an israeli prime minister (cough most of them cough) being arrested overseas and sent to the Hague. Plus if that happened it would commit the USA and Israel to invade the Netherlands to bust them out of jail.
It is a natural reaction as a problem goes on for people to become more hard-line in their attitudes.
For me this is a sign that for a growing number of people, the 'international community' is not working. Israel has sat there for the last forty years whilst one internationalist politico after another has urged caution, inserted themselves as mediator, and failed to engineer even the beginnings of a solution.The rockets keep coming.
And so Israel has finally said ''we'll do what we want''.
Australia's election is another example. You know what??? two fingers to the IPCC and s*d your carbon tax.
UKIP is another manifestation of this. The UK's network of internationalist treaties and obligations does not work for their supporters. They couldn;t give a hoot if we smashed the whole thing up and became a 'pariah state'
Your last paragraph sums up why more UKIP supporters are pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian.
Israel and america and in far too many wars to risk an american president (cough George W. cough) and an israeli prime minister (cough most of them cough) being arrested overseas and sent to the Hague. Plus if that happened it would commit the USA and Israel to invade the Netherlands to bust them out of jail.
Why we ratified the Rome Statute and subjected ourselves to the kangaroo justice meted out by the International Criminal Court is inexplicable. If the United Kingdom cannot bring its own wrongdoers to justice, we may as give up on the idea of being an independent sovereign nation.
Mediation seems to be unpopular with both the Israelis and Hamas. And to be honest, there is no obvious compromise available. Hamas want the removal of Israel and the Israelis want their enemies eradicated.
So, you either cancel the 1948 formation of Israel or resettle the population of Gaza elsewhere. Hmm ... somewhat tricky on either count.
I listened to the Hamas spokesman on Hard Talk this week and he was asked about conditions for a lasting ceasefire. No obvious answer; Israel's existence seems to be the provocation.
So the Irish answer is the only one - If was you, sir, I wouldn't start from here.
It is a natural reaction as a problem goes on for people to become more hard-line in their attitudes.
For me this is a sign that for a growing number of people, the 'international community' is not working. Israel has sat there for the last forty years whilst one internationalist politico after another has urged caution, inserted themselves as mediator, and failed to engineer even the beginnings of a solution.The rockets keep coming.
And so Israel has finally said ''we'll do what we want''.
Australia's election is another example. You know what??? two fingers to the IPCC and s*d your carbon tax.
UKIP is another manifestation of this. The UK's network of internationalist treaties and obligations does not work for their supporters. They couldn;t give a hoot if we smashed the whole thing up and became a 'pariah state'
Australia last year was all about getting rid of that (expletive deleted) woman Julia Gillard, it had nothing to do with Israel or carbon taxes or populist right wing or anything else.
The australian people simply had had enough of an incompetent feminist fanatic shouting verbal abuse to anyone who dared to critisize her (man, woman or child) as chauvinist sexist male pigs.
The Gaza debate is getting quite heated today, though not quite at farmers' market levels yet.
There used to be an Israeli opposition. Netanyahu used to be an extremist. When did all of Israel row in behind indiscriminate slaughter?
Its a decades long process, starting with the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin. Basically the Israeli state regards any lefty as a traitor so every left wing party must be undermined, destroyed or controlled.
I give you the example of the last Israeli election, the state after a decade trying to destroy the Labour party with constant funding of defections and splitter parties and plant leaders that allied with them was facing a resurgent peace loving Labour under Shelly Yachimovich the first leader that Labour had that was not controlled by the state since Peres. So what did Netanyahu do was he created a new party just before the election with TV presenter Yair Lapid to eat into the Labour vote and merged Likud with Beiteinu, it worked. He was back in power and he succesfully ousted Yachimovich and installed another plant as Labour leader.
That strategy is basically followed since the Oslo peace accords. If your prefered party is not popular you create a new one with the same people to eat into the opposition, so you can stay in power.
No my friend in this Bibi is not to blame. The electoral system in Israel is a form of PR with a miniscule 3%± threshold, so all sorts of wanking parties can be formed; some just for the specific election. If anyone is to blame it's the founding fathers; Ben Gurion et al, when there was no passing threshold.
A proposal to make the passing threshold in the Knesset 5% or more has always been voted down.
FF .Regardless of where the shell was fired from it is still ludicrous that anyone who "Clearly identified " the target as children would actually press the button ..on a number of levels..
The Gaza debate is getting quite heated today, though not quite at farmers' market levels yet.
There used to be an Israeli opposition. Netanyahu used to be an extremist. When did all of Israel row in behind indiscriminate slaughter?
Its a decades long process, starting with the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin. Basically the Israeli state regards any lefty as a traitor so every left wing party must be undermined, destroyed or controlled.
I give you the example of the last Israeli election, the state after a decade trying to destroy the Labour party with constant funding of defections and splitter parties and plant leaders that allied with them was facing a resurgent peace loving Labour under Shelly Yachimovich the first leader that Labour had that was not controlled by the state since Peres. So what did Netanyahu do was he created a new party just before the election with TV presenter Yair Lapid to eat into the Labour vote and merged Likud with Beiteinu, it worked. He was back in power and he succesfully ousted Yachimovich and installed another plant as Labour leader.
That strategy is basically followed since the Oslo peace accords. If your prefered party is not popular you create a new one with the same people to eat into the opposition, so you can stay in power.
No my friend in this Bibi is not to blame. The electoral system in Israel is a form of PR with a miniscule 3%± threshold, so all sorts of wanking parties can be formed; some just for the specific election. If anyone is to blame it's the founding fathers; Ben Gurion et al, when there was no passing threshold.
A proposal to make the passing threshold in the Knesset 5% or more has always been voted down.
It is ridiculous though to see how many times that strategy has been used in the past decade.
May I mention Kadima, Meretz, Hatunah and Independence as other examples besides Yesh Atid and Likud Beiteinu parties. Or Barak, Livni, Mofaz, Peretz and Sharon besides Lapid and Herzog as plants or leaders who created parties out of thin air only to try and stay in power.
The psychology of Israel is similar to that sometimes seen in abusive relationships. The abuser hates what they have become and blames the abused for "forcing" them to behave in this way. This causes further anger and fuels yet more violence in an ever more vicious circle.
Of course in a relationship the parties can separate but in the Middle East this is more problematic. How does Israel change it's behaviour? There must be some Israelis who believe they are better than this. At the moment their behaviour is indefensible even by their friends. Something must be done for their own sake, let alone the children of Gaza.
Mediation seems to be unpopular with both the Israelis and Hamas. And to be honest, there is no obvious compromise available. Hamas want the removal of Israel and the Israelis want their enemies eradicated.
So, you either cancel the 1948 formation of Israel or resettle the population of Gaza elsewhere. Hmm ... somewhat tricky on either count.
I listened to the Hamas spokesman on Hard Talk this week and he was asked about conditions for a lasting ceasefire. No obvious answer; Israel's existence seems to be the provocation.
So the Irish answer is the only one - If was you, sir, I wouldn't start from here.
How do you have peace talks with Hamas, when their charter includes the end of Israel?
In 2007 the palestinian authority broke in two with Hamas in control in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank. The Israeli blockade of Gaza dates from then, because Hamas refused to:
1) Desist from violent attacks on Israel 2) Recognise Israels right to exist 3) Respect existing agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel
None of these are unreasonable preconditions for a more permanent settlement. Hamas's rejection of these is tantamount to a declaration of war.
I am a Lib Dem and frankly surprised that Israel has tolerated Hamas attacks as long as it has.
Israel can trade land for peace, it did in 77 with Egypt and attempted to in 2005 with the PLA.
War is hell and involves mass killing, those who preach holy war should not be surprised that they get an unholy response from their enemy.
Mediation seems to be unpopular with both the Israelis and Hamas. And to be honest, there is no obvious compromise available. Hamas want the removal of Israel and the Israelis want their enemies eradicated.
So, you either cancel the 1948 formation of Israel or resettle the population of Gaza elsewhere. Hmm ... somewhat tricky on either count.
I listened to the Hamas spokesman on Hard Talk this week and he was asked about conditions for a lasting ceasefire. No obvious answer; Israel's existence seems to be the provocation.
So the Irish answer is the only one - If was you, sir, I wouldn't start from here.
How do you have peace talks with Hamas, when their charter includes the end of Israel?
In 2007 the palestinian authority broke in two with Hamas in control in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank. The Israeli blockade of Gaza dates from then, because Hamas refused to:
1) Desist from violent attacks on Israel 2) Recognise Israels right to exist 3) Respect existing agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel
None of these are unreasonable preconditions for a more permanent settlement. Hamas's rejection of these is tantamount to a declaration of war.
I am a Lib Dem and frankly surprised that Israel has tolerated Hamas attacks as long as it has.
Israel can trade land for peace, it did in 77 with Egypt and attempted to in 2005 with the PLA.
War is hell and involves mass killing, those who preach holy war should not be surprised that they get an unholy response from their enemy.
One state solution, Bosnia style. That is the only thing that will work.
Another problem brewing close to Israel. Islamic militants (ISIS?, Al-Nusra?, someone else?) in Lebanon are fighting to capture the town of Arsal, there are battles going on right now between the Lebanese army and those militants close by after the Lebanese police arrest a Jihadist.
This is a very tricksy formulation. No country has a right to exist. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland stopped existing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stopped existing. Czechoslovakia stopped existing.
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
SO..the idea that an army Officer ..deep within Israel, would "Clearly identify" the group on the beach as children and then give the order to kill them is ludicrous
That may be the case. But as that is not what happened it does not apply here.
This is a very tricksy formulation. No country has a right to exist. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland stopped existing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stopped existing. Czechoslovakia stopped existing.
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
But you don't think that Hamas's position that Israel has no right to exist is just a little bit inflammatory?
In the same way, the right to return has seen unreasonable positions. The Israelis have proposed full market value as compensation for land lost 50 years ago. The Palestinians want the specific patch of land, and all buildings put up since to be demolished without compensation for the people who erected them and have been using them in the last 50 years. A tad unreasonable, no?
This is a very tricksy formulation. No country has a right to exist. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland stopped existing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stopped existing. Czechoslovakia stopped existing.
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse there. All those examples were where the country involved was dissolved by the people who live there - they weren't dissolved by outsiders who claimed their very existence was a crime. Do you support Israel's "right to exist" by this narrow standard? And how about the other two points made - "desist from violent attacks" and "respect existing agreements", do you believe these are unreasonable demands too?
This is a very tricksy formulation. No country has a right to exist. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland stopped existing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stopped existing. Czechoslovakia stopped existing.
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
But you don't think that Hamas's position that Israel has no tight to exist is just a little big inflammatory?
In the same way, the right to return has seen unreasonable positions. The Israelis have proposed full market value as compensation for land lost 50 years ago. The Palestinians want the specific patch of land, and all buildings pug up since to be demolished without compensation for the people who erected them and have been using them. A tad unreasonable, no?
Because throughout all this Israel has been continuously stealing Palestinian land and making a two state solution impossible on the ground. So in return Palestinians make impossible demands.
Neither side is acting in good faith, both are led by evil men. But only one has the armaments with which to kills hundreds of children day after day. Only one side is slaughtering the innocent: Israel.
3000 rockets fired into civilian areas.
Tunnels built to attack farming communities.
And the Right to Return specifically relates to the 1948/67 exoduses not more recent illegal settlements. But I'm sure you've done your research and were just being deliberately misleading for a debatorial advantage
But you don't think that Hamas's position that Israel has no right to exist is just a little bit inflammatory?
No, it's common sense. For the reasons I've given, nobody who has thought it through can sensibly claim in good faith that Israel has a right to exist, especially with the implied "as a Jewish state".
It's a tricksy phrase designed to make denying it _sound_ inflammatory, so if the goal was to reduce the tension and get to a deal, the solution would be to stop using that phrase.
In the same way, the right to return has seen unreasonable positions. The Israelis have proposed full market value as compensation for land lost 50 years ago. The Palestinians want the specific patch of land, and all buildings put up since to be demolished without compensation for the people who erected them and have been using them in the last 50 years. A tad unreasonable, no?
Sure Hamas has a bunch of unreasonable positions, like the bit in that quote in their charter about killing all the Jews, and how they're going to hide behind the trees, but the trees are going to tell snitch on them, apart from one particular tree, which is a _Jewish_ tree. But it's not unreasonable to deny that Israel has a right to exist. On the contrary, it's unreasonable to claim that Israel has a right to exist.
However the cruel and basic military facts are that those thousands of Hamas rockets killed ZERO Israelis in the last three years, and Israel has responded by butchering 1600 Gazans in one single month, including 300 children, as part of a deliberate policy to target civilians and terrorise the populace.
Israel's actions are indefensible. It is a shame someone as clever as you should stoop to defending them.
I'm off for coffee and cake.
I'm not defending them, but their response is understandable. Hamas is n implacable enemy. they've tried compromise, they've tried reasonableness, now they are going to try force. I don't think it will work, but I can understand why they think they need to do it.
The one-sided criticism of Israel that we see in the western media is unfair. *that's* what I'm reciting against
Mr. Tokyo, if no state has a right to exist then no state can have a right to self-defence. An intresting idea with lots of ramifications, and not one shared by the United Nations.
Mr. Tokyo, if no state has a right to exist then no state can have a right to self-defence. An intresting idea with lots of ramifications, and not one shared by the United Nations.
Not true, they're different things. The first one is a metaphysical puzzle designed to confuse people, which is why you hardly ever see it used except when talking about Israel, where people use it because it allows all kinds of slight-of-hand with the variously implicit and explicit "as a Jewish state" rider. The second one is an actual thing with a lot of historical substance.
Edit to add: Just because Israel doesn't have a right to exist doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to self-defence.
This is a very tricksy formulation. No country has a right to exist. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland stopped existing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stopped existing. Czechoslovakia stopped existing.
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse there. All those examples were where the country involved was dissolved by the people who live there - they weren't dissolved by outsiders who claimed their very existence was a crime. Do you support Israel's "right to exist" by this narrow standard?
HurstLlama bringing in the "right to self-defence" should help make this clear. If there's a "right to exist" (usually with implicit rider "as a Jewish state") then Israel has a right to keep people out who would vote to dissolve it, even if they would otherwise have a right to be in. This is not a right that Israel, or any other any country, has.
Israel may still have a right to self-defence, so if Egypt tried to invade them and take over the country they'd have a right to use force to defend themselves.
If you find this confusing, it's because we're talking about an expression that's been carefully designed to confuse you.
However the cruel and basic military facts are that those thousands of Hamas rockets killed ZERO Israelis in the last three years, and Israel has responded by butchering 1600 Gazans in one single month, including 300 children, as part of a deliberate policy to target civilians and terrorise the populace.
Israel's actions are indefensible. It is a shame someone as clever as you should stoop to defending them.
I'm off for coffee and cake.
I'm not defending them, but their response is understandable. Hamas is n implacable enemy. they've tried compromise, they've tried reasonableness, now they are going to try force. I don't think it will work, but I can understand why they think they need to do it.
The one-sided criticism of Israel that we see in the western media is unfair. *that's* what I'm reciting against
The numbers are tragic, Israel may be over reacting - I'm not sure but I think probably not (whether the tactics are right is another matter) - but the actual numbers are not being independently verified and are probably been exaggerated for propaganda purposes. Based on studies from figures by Al Jazeera they also seem to be predominantly of men of military age - 80% of the killed are men with nearly half between 18 and 28.
The PB July Polling Average: Gravity finally catches up with UKIP
For the first time since this time last year.
I did a quick calculation of UKIPs monthly figures for May June and July 2013 against 2014
2013
May 16% June 14% July 12%
2014
May 15% June 15% July 13%
So in fact UKIP on these rough figures are 1 point up on the same time last year. That would seem to cast doubt about any assertions around UKIP and gravity. Perhaps UKIP voters are out in the garden enjoying barbecues and don't hear the phone and can't be fussed with their e-mail or are all enjoying their holidays before the kids finish school)?.
One shouldn't read any significance into what probably are purely seasonal figures.........
JW..SO claims the targets were clearly identified as children..I just asked how he knew..and would he pass on the source of his information...and yes, artillery shells are fearsome in their destructive powers,particularly on a beach where there are no impediments to the saturated spread of the shrapnel.. not a safe place to let children play during a war..just behind them.
If Scotland had no right to exist it would make next week's debate interesting......
Scotland the (not yet existent) independent country? It doesn't have a right to exist. If it did we wouldn't need a referendum, because the views of its inhabitants would be trumped by the rights to existence of the not-yet-existent country and "no" wouldn't be an option. (If the polling carries on as it has been Salmond might want to give this reasoning a try...)
Like I say, if we want to talk about geopolitics instead of metaphysical puzzles, we should talk about things like the right to self-defence.
This is a very tricksy formulation. No country has a right to exist. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland stopped existing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stopped existing. Czechoslovakia stopped existing.
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse there. All those examples were where the country involved was dissolved by the people who live there - they weren't dissolved by outsiders who claimed their very existence was a crime. Do you support Israel's "right to exist" by this narrow standard? And how about the other two points made - "desist from violent attacks" and "respect existing agreements", do you believe these are unreasonable demands too?
Accepting the right to exist as a Jewish State is not unreasonable. Many states (including UK) have an established church or religion with special legal position, and in the Middle East there are few that do not. Religious minorities are better protected in Israel than any where else in the Middle East. Indeed attending mosques there is significantly safer than in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan etc where there is a significant risk of being bombed by a rival Islamic sect. Israel is the most religiously tolerant and accommodating state in the region by tens of miles, and also tolerant of atheism. This may well be part of the reason Islamist groups like Hamas hate it so much.
This is a very tricksy formulation. No country has a right to exist. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland stopped existing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stopped existing. Czechoslovakia stopped existing.
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse there. All those examples were where the country involved was dissolved by the people who live there - they weren't dissolved by outsiders who claimed their very existence was a crime. Do you support Israel's "right to exist" by this narrow standard?
HurstLlama bringing in the "right to self-defence" should help make this clear. If there's a "right to exist" (usually with implicit rider "as a Jewish state") then Israel has a right to keep people out who would vote to dissolve it, even if they would otherwise have a right to be in. This is not a right that Israel, or any other any country, has.
Israel may still have a right to self-defence, so if Egypt tried to invade them and take over the country they'd have a right to use force to defend themselves.
If you find this confusing, it's because we're talking about an expression that's been carefully designed to confuse you.
No it's not. It's because Israel is pretty much the only country in the world where people think it's respectable to deny it's right to exist - at least you're being relatively honest that it's the Jewishness of the state that's a problem for you. Despicable, but honest.
And you still haven't answered whether you think the other two demands are reasonable ones for Israel to make.
This is a very tricksy formulation. No country has a right to exist. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland stopped existing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stopped existing. Czechoslovakia stopped existing.
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse there. All those examples were where the country involved was dissolved by the people who live there - they weren't dissolved by outsiders who claimed their very existence was a crime. Do you support Israel's "right to exist" by this narrow standard? And how about the other two points made - "desist from violent attacks" and "respect existing agreements", do you believe these are unreasonable demands too?
Accepting the right to exist as a Jewish State is not unreasonable. Many states (including UK) have an established church or religion with special legal position, and in the Middle East there are few that do not. Religious minorities are better protected in Israel than any where else in the Middle East. Indeed attending mosques there is significantly safer than in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan etc where there is a significant risk of being bombed by a rival Islamic sect. Israel is the most religiously tolerant and accommodating state in the region by tens of miles, and also tolerant of atheism. This may well be part of the reason Islamist groups like Hamas hate it so much.
You're confusing yourself with needlessly obscure metaphysics. This discussion would be a lot easier if people would just talk about it normally - existence is a very complicated subject, full of philosophical traps.
The UK has a right to be a Christian country at any given time if that's what its inhabitants choose, but that's a different thing from the right to exist as a Christian country.
Meanwhile Dr Kent Brantly, one of two Americans infected with Ebola, has arrived in Atlanta on his way to Emory University Hospital. The other American victim will arrive in a day or so.
However the cruel and basic military facts are that those thousands of Hamas rockets killed ZERO Israelis in the last three years, and Israel has responded by butchering 1600 Gazans in one single month, including 300 children, as part of a deliberate policy to target civilians and terrorise the populace.
Israel's actions are indefensible. It is a shame someone as clever as you should stoop to defending them.
I'm off for coffee and cake.
I'm not defending them, but their response is understandable. Hamas is n implacable enemy. they've tried compromise, they've tried reasonableness, now they are going to try force. I don't think it will work, but I can understand why they think they need to do it.
The one-sided criticism of Israel that we see in the western media is unfair. *that's* what I'm reciting against
The numbers are tragic, Israel may be over reacting - I'm not sure but I think probably not (whether the tactics are right is another matter) - but the actual numbers are not being independently verified and are probably been exaggerated for propaganda purposes. Based on studies from figures by Al Jazeera they also seem to be predominantly of men of military age - 80% of the killed are men with nearly half between 18 and 28.
Or "children" as SeanT would no doubt call them. The numbers are also being inflated BTW because Hamas are using the violence as an opportunity to murder their domestic enemies and add the bodies to the Israeli death toll -
A former SNP Lord Provost yesterday appealed to Alex Salmond to “slam on the brakes” of his independence campaign because he has “no answers” about a separate Scotland’s currency or EU membership.
Alex Murray, the SNP’s first Lord Provost of Perth and a party member for 53 years, told the Telegraph he has written to the First Minister urging him to drop independence in favour of Scotland remaining part of a federal UK.
Despite the First Minister’s assertions otherwise, Mr Murray said Mr Salmond and the rest of the party’s hierarchy were “not too sure” about how independence would actually work.
In particular, the former Yes campaigner said Mr Salmond, who is a long-time acquaintance, had “no answer at all” about what would happen to the pound or Scotland’s EU membership.
This is a very tricksy formulation. No country has a right to exist. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland stopped existing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stopped existing. Czechoslovakia stopped existing.
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse there. All those examples were where the country involved was dissolved by the people who live there - they weren't dissolved by outsiders who claimed their very existence was a crime. Do you support Israel's "right to exist" by this narrow standard? And how about the other two points made - "desist from violent attacks" and "respect existing agreements", do you believe these are unreasonable demands too?
Accepting the right to exist as a Jewish State is not unreasonable. Many states (including UK) have an established church or religion with special legal position, and in the Middle East there are few that do not. Religious minorities are better protected in Israel than any where else in the Middle East. Indeed attending mosques there is significantly safer than in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan etc where there is a significant risk of being bombed by a rival Islamic sect. Israel is the most religiously tolerant and accommodating state in the region by tens of miles, and also tolerant of atheism. This may well be part of the reason Islamist groups like Hamas hate it so much.
It's not just religious minorities that are safest in Israel. Compare and contrast
And yes, I'm sure this is another reason Hamas wants to wipe out Israel. The people responsible for the second story are amongst Hamas' most important backers of course.
The nonsense spouted on here about the 'evil' Israel is extraordinarily naive. Apart from being more full of holes than a Swiss cheese some of it seems predicated on a belief that somehow to criticise Israel will somehow discourage the jihadists from terrorism against western targets. If it wasn't so tragic it would be very funny. Of course the [sic] David/Goliath stuff is manna for the journalists seeking to become latter-day Kate Adie's. Also sad is the 'discovery' that war produces vast quantities of innocent victims. However, to pretend that Israel is deliberately aiming to kill said victims is frankly absurd.
No it's not. It's because Israel is pretty much the only country in the world where people think it's respectable to deny it's right to exist - at least you're being relatively honest that it's the Jewishness of the state that's a problem for you. Despicable, but honest.
I don't think you've managed to follow this discussion.
JW..SO claims the targets were clearly identified as children..I just asked how he knew..and would he pass on the source of his information...and yes, artillery shells are fearsome in their destructive powers,particularly on a beach where there are no impediments to the saturated spread of the shrapnel.. not a safe place to let children play during a war..just behind them.
Children will play in war zones. They always do especially if they know little else as indeed did British children in WWII.
Let me be clear. A military commander firing artillery shells into civilian areas will kill indiscriminately. They is no other logic to the use of such weapons.
Politicians call it "unintended collateral damage". The parents of dead children will rightly reject such sophistry as indeed would you and I if our own offspring were decimated into dozens of parts.
Whatever one thinks of the Israeli Prime Minister, he is doing what his constituents put him there to do - ensure their safety and prosperity against an implacable and deadly enemy.
He is one of those rare modern politicians who puts his own voters first, and every other b8gger nowhere.
He has a complete disregard for Israel's 'position in the international community'. Many modern politicians start with their country's 'position in the international community' and sell their voters a deal they think that community will countenance in their country's case.
Flat spots are indeed tremendously serious. A big reason Vettel was down in 7th (or so) in Hungary was because he spun and flat-spotted a set of new tyres.
Eyes still not used to my new glasses. It's an odd feeling.
No it's not. It's because Israel is pretty much the only country in the world where people think it's respectable to deny it's right to exist - at least you're being relatively honest that it's the Jewishness of the state that's a problem for you. Despicable, but honest.
I don't think you've managed to follow this discussion.
Okay then - let's go back to the other points. "Desist from violent attacks" and "respect existing agreements". Do you think these are reasonable demands for Israel to make, or not? You have declined to answer about three times now. Why?
JW..We all know what shells can do..The point is that SO claimed that the targets were clearly identified as children..I asked him to provide some evidence to support that statement
You're confusing yourself with needlessly obscure metaphysics. This discussion would be a lot easier if people would just talk about it normally - existence is a very complicated subject, full of philosophical traps.
The UK has a right to be a Christian country at any given time if that's what its inhabitants choose, but that's a different thing from the right to exist as a Christian country.
[Edited for clarity.]
The issue is you are talking purely philosophically.
In practice, Hamas is advocating Israel move from a state of existence to a state of non- existence. At this point the right to self defend (ie maintain the status quo) takes primacy.
JW..We all know what shells can do..The point is that SO claimed that the targets were clearly identified as children..I asked him to provide some evidence to support that statement
Only two scenarios are viable.
Firstly the commander fired blind in which case the attack was unjustified or secondly the targets were acquired and area shelling was deployed that killed the children.
Whatever one thinks of the Israeli Prime Minister, he is doing what his constituents put him there to do - ensure their safety and prosperity against an implacable and deadly enemy.
He is one of those rare modern politicians who puts his own voters first, and every other b8gger nowhere.
He has a complete disregard for Israel's 'position in the international community'. Many modern politicians start with their country's 'position in the international community' and sell their voters a deal they think that community will countenance in their country's case.
Exactly right which is why he should be tried for war crimes . I doubt whether Hitler would have been successful in defending himself against war crime charges by saying he was only doing what his constituents wanted .
JW..I could not agree more..but to claim that the targets were clearly identified as children.. as SO does, takes the claim into another area..he should be able to provide evidence that backs up his statement
No it's not. It's because Israel is pretty much the only country in the world where people think it's respectable to deny it's right to exist - at least you're being relatively honest that it's the Jewishness of the state that's a problem for you. Despicable, but honest.
I don't think you've managed to follow this discussion.
Okay then - let's go back to the other points. "Desist from violent attacks" and "respect existing agreements". Do you think these are reasonable demands for Israel to make, or not?
I don't know enough about the detail on the ground to know that, which is why I've only been commenting on the metaphysics problems which people rather mysteriously insist on bringing into the discussion. For example, is it plausible that if Hamas honour the pre-existing agreements, Israel will also honour their side of them? There's an argument that continuing to expand settlements in Palestinian areas shows that they actually have no intention of honouring them, in which case they'd be better off starting from scratch. But maybe that was a response to something the Palestinians were doing and could stop doing, and the process could still be put back on the rails?
To form good opinions on this stuff you really need to have been following the various agreements and actions on the ground with at least the kind of day-to-day obsessiveness we deploy to work out how strong Liberal Democrat incumbency will be and how Labour will perform compared to UNS. It's not enough just to tune in when the Western media does. If anybody here has that kind of expertise on the ins and outs of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, they're not sharing it with us.
Whatever one thinks of the Israeli Prime Minister, he is doing what his constituents put him there to do - ensure their safety and prosperity against an implacable and deadly enemy.
He is one of those rare modern politicians who puts his own voters first, and every other b8gger nowhere.
He has a complete disregard for Israel's 'position in the international community'. Many modern politicians start with their country's 'position in the international community' and sell their voters a deal they think that community will countenance in their country's case.
The rate of Israeli deaths has dramatically increased since Operation Protective Edge began, and it now appears that giving Hamas a load of soldiers/targets right on their doorstep has resulted in one being captured - giving Hamas a huge bargaining chip for future negotiations over possibly years (See Gilad Shalit). If Israel's actions did actually keep them safe they might be a bit more understandable, but in both the long AND short-term they do the opposite!
Whatever one thinks of the Israeli Prime Minister, he is doing what his constituents put him there to do - ensure their safety and prosperity against an implacable and deadly enemy.
He is one of those rare modern politicians who puts his own voters first, and every other b8gger nowhere.
He has a complete disregard for Israel's 'position in the international community'. Many modern politicians start with their country's 'position in the international community' and sell their voters a deal they think that community will countenance in their country's case.
Exactly right which is why he should be tried for war crimes . I doubt whether Hitler would have been successful in defending himself against war crime charges by saying he was only doing what his constituents wanted .
By your yardstick, every Western leader in WWII should have been tried for war crimes.
No it's not. It's because Israel is pretty much the only country in the world where people think it's respectable to deny it's right to exist - at least you're being relatively honest that it's the Jewishness of the state that's a problem for you. Despicable, but honest.
I don't think you've managed to follow this discussion.
Okay then - let's go back to the other points. "Desist from violent attacks" and "respect existing agreements". Do you think these are reasonable demands for Israel to make, or not?
I don't know enough about the detail on the ground to know that, which is why I've only been commenting on the metaphysics problems which people rather mysteriously insist on bringing into the discussion. For example, is it plausible that if Hamas honour the pre-existing agreements, Israel will also honour their side of them? There's an argument that continuing to expand settlements in Palestinian areas shows that they actually have no intention of honouring them, in which case they'd be better off starting from scratch. But maybe that was a response to something the Palestinians were doing and could stop doing, and the process could still be put back on the rails?
To form good opinions on this stuff you really need to have been following the various agreements and actions on the ground with at least the kind of day-to-day obsessiveness we deploy to work out how strong Liberal Democrat incumbency will be and how Labour will perform compared to UNS. It's not enough just to tune in when the Western media does. If anybody here has that kind of expertise on the ins and outs of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, they're not sharing it with us.
Are new settlements policy, though?
Based on the conversations I've had with the people I know in Jerusalem, it appears to be "religious nutters" [phrase used by my primary contact, who is an orthodox Jew] doing it in a deliberatively provocative way. The government is unable/unwilling to kick them out of the new settlements ( because the "settler party" has a small number of seats in the Knesset but are critical votes.
You're confusing yourself with needlessly obscure metaphysics. This discussion would be a lot easier if people would just talk about it normally - existence is a very complicated subject, full of philosophical traps.
The UK has a right to be a Christian country at any given time if that's what its inhabitants choose, but that's a different thing from the right to exist as a Christian country.
[Edited for clarity.]
The issue is you are talking purely philosophically.
In practice, Hamas is advocating Israel move from a state of existence to a state of non- existence. At this point the right to self defend (ie maintain the status quo) takes primacy.
You're the one who's talking about being and nothingness, I'm trying to get people to use words they actually understand. If people were just using the right to existence as a synonym for the right to self-defence then I suppose we could just treat it as one of those little whims, but the expression is designed to smuggle in a load of other rights that countries don't really have.
Based on the conversations I've had with the people I know in Jerusalem, it appears to be "religious nutters" [phrase used by my primary contact, who is an orthodox Jew] doing it in a deliberatively provocative way. The government is unable/unwilling to kick them out of the new settlements ( because the "settler party" has a small number of seats in the Knesset but are critical votes.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is right, if for whatever reason the main parties in the government can't stop settlers creating new settlements, how on earth are they going to dismantle the ones they've already built so they can return those areas to Palestinian control? Won't they be subject to the same constraints and worse?
Like I say I'm out of my depth here and for all I know maybe it's possible to set up a virtuous circle where you build trust and gradually isolate the nut-jobs, but at the very least it doesn't seem _obvious_ that everybody should be just picking up the previous agreement where they left off.
JW..I could not agree more..but to claim that the targets were clearly identified as children.. as SO does, takes the claim into another area..he should be able to provide evidence that backs up his statement
We may only know if the commander of the naval vessel comes forward - Most unlikely.
However let me be clear. The Irsaeli government and IDF do knowingly target children. They know full well that the non smart muntions they use will definitely kill children.
Israel no longer cares what the rest of the world think. Even the United States influence is limited.
However it should concern Israel that its friends in the world shake their heads in disbelief that a country who post WWII enjoyed the sympathy and respect of much of the world has lost its way so badly.
No military conflict lasts forever. At some point Israel will need its' friends once more.
A former SNP Lord Provost yesterday appealed to Alex Salmond to “slam on the brakes” of his independence campaign because he has “no answers” about a separate Scotland’s currency or EU membership.
Alex Murray, the SNP’s first Lord Provost of Perth and a party member for 53 years, told the Telegraph he has written to the First Minister urging him to drop independence in favour of Scotland remaining part of a federal UK.
Despite the First Minister’s assertions otherwise, Mr Murray said Mr Salmond and the rest of the party’s hierarchy were “not too sure” about how independence would actually work.
In particular, the former Yes campaigner said Mr Salmond, who is a long-time acquaintance, had “no answer at all” about what would happen to the pound or Scotland’s EU membership.
Looks like it's all going down the tube's for the SNP?
I think I might give PB and other news blogs a miss on the day after the referendum - They'll be some VERY grumpy Nat's around I fear.
You wish, reality will be very different for you
Actually I've never really been fussed by what Scotland does and I've always thought there was good chance of Scotland becoming independent.
Just can't see it happening right now. The polls are all saying the same thing (namely that NO will win) and the SNP campaign just seems to be faltering really - You don't look like winners with The Big Mo to me. It feel's like you hit the "high point" with *THAT* ICM poll around April and have been slowly deflating ever since.
JW ..Can you provide verifiable evidence that the Israeli Government and the IDF deliberately target children. Non smart munitions are exactly that.. non smart ..they kill everyone.. regardless of age and gender. So do the smart ones.
JW ..Can you prOvide verifiable evidence that the Israeli Government and the IDF deliberately target children. Non smart munitions are exactly that.. non smart ..they kill everyone.. regardless of age and gender. So do the smart ones.
Your second statement provides the proof.
It's an uncomfortable truth that no western government will acknowledge for obvious reasons.
JW..We all know what shells can do..The point is that SO claimed that the targets were clearly identified as children..I asked him to provide some evidence to support that statement
Only two scenarios are viable.
Firstly the commander fired blind in which case the attack was unjustified or secondly the targets were acquired and area shelling was deployed that killed the children.
Neither situation is especially edifying.
A third and most likely possibility is that an Israeli Naval Officer (on a moving boat and viewing at a distance of kilometers through binoculars) saw figures moving near the fishing boats and mis-identified them as Hamas activists preparing a rocket attack.
Mistakes are made in war. This was probably one of them.
No it's not. It's because Israel is pretty much the only country in the world where people think it's respectable to deny it's right to exist - at least you're being relatively honest that it's the Jewishness of the state that's a problem for you. Despicable, but honest.
I don't think you've managed to follow this discussion.
Okay then - let's go back to the other points. "Desist from violent attacks" and "respect existing agreements". Do you think these are reasonable demands for Israel to make, or not?
I don't know enough about the detail on the ground to know that, which is why I've only been commenting on the metaphysics problems which people rather mysteriously insist on bringing into the discussion. For example, is it plausible that if Hamas honour the pre-existing agreements, Israel will also honour their side of them? There's an argument that continuing to expand settlements in Palestinian areas shows that they actually have no intention of honouring them, in which case they'd be better off starting from scratch. But maybe that was a response to something the Palestinians were doing and could stop doing, and the process could still be put back on the rails?
To form good opinions on this stuff you really need to have been following the various agreements and actions on the ground with at least the kind of day-to-day obsessiveness we deploy to work out how strong Liberal Democrat incumbency will be and how Labour will perform compared to UNS. It's not enough just to tune in when the Western media does. If anybody here has that kind of expertise on the ins and outs of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, they're not sharing it with us.
Israel forcibly removed several settlements and 10 000 settlers from Gaza in 2005, when they handed everything in Gaza over to Palestinian control.
How did the Palestinians reciprocate? By rocket attacks...
Comments
Peace, brothers and sisters.
Now onto something else...
I do not agree, but that is far more reasonable than Hamas proposals for treatment of Israelis.
I can understand the emotion that what is happening raises and the helpless anger. But neither the Israeli people nor the country's leaders are intent on genocide. To claim that they are only helps those pushing the hardest line in Israel because it provides them ammunition with which to dishonestly portray all criticism of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic.
http://images.smh.com.au/2014/07/31/5640011/1406774185785.jpg-620x349.jpg
There used to be an Israeli opposition. Netanyahu used to be an extremist. When did all of Israel row in behind indiscriminate slaughter?
In this country, as mass immigration has become more and more of a problem for some people, then UKIP has become more popular. But you wouldn't say that all British citizens support "indiscriminate deportation", would you?
It is a natural reaction as a problem goes on for people to become more hard-line in their attitudes.
With Camerons comments on UKIP and some of the issues that have come up in recent times, I would think that the Tories would never want to become involved.
Look I know the LibDems are the party that gave us Jenny Tonge and David Ward, but I thought they at least tried to pretend to be embarrassed about being associated with this sort of thing?
For me this is a sign that for a growing number of people, the 'international community' is not working. Israel has sat there for the last forty years whilst one internationalist politico after another has urged caution, inserted themselves as mediator, and failed to engineer even the beginnings of a solution.The rockets keep coming.
And so Israel has finally said ''we'll do what we want''.
Australia's election is another example. You know what??? two fingers to the IPCC and s*d your carbon tax.
UKIP is another manifestation of this. The UK's network of internationalist treaties and obligations does not work for their supporters. They couldn;t give a hoot if we smashed the whole thing up and became a 'pariah state'
Basically the Israeli state regards any lefty as a traitor so every left wing party must be undermined, destroyed or controlled.
I give you the example of the last Israeli election, the state after a decade trying to destroy the Labour party with constant funding of defections and splitter parties and plant leaders that allied with them was facing a resurgent peace loving Labour under Shelly Yachimovich the first leader that Labour had that was not controlled by the state since Peres.
So what did Netanyahu do was he created a new party just before the election with TV presenter Yair Lapid to eat into the Labour vote and merged Likud with Beiteinu, it worked. He was back in power and he succesfully ousted Yachimovich and installed another plant as Labour leader.
That strategy is basically followed since the Oslo peace accords.
If your prefered party is not popular you create a new one with the same people to eat into the opposition, so you can stay in power.
http://www.crewenantwichlabour.org.uk/rlongbailey
She claims to be confronting the forces of darkness since 1979.
Ship off shore in this case.
Back in the day, the Liberals were the party of choice for Jews. It's how Sir Percy Harris held on so long in Bethnal Green, and how they began their revival in local government by winning Finchley Council.
Plus if that happened it would commit the USA and Israel to invade the Netherlands to bust them out of jail.
So, you either cancel the 1948 formation of Israel or resettle the population of Gaza elsewhere. Hmm ... somewhat tricky on either count.
I listened to the Hamas spokesman on Hard Talk this week and he was asked about conditions for a lasting ceasefire. No obvious answer; Israel's existence seems to be the provocation.
So the Irish answer is the only one - If was you, sir, I wouldn't start from here.
The australian people simply had had enough of an incompetent feminist fanatic shouting verbal abuse to anyone who dared to critisize her (man, woman or child) as chauvinist sexist male pigs.
A proposal to make the passing threshold in the Knesset 5% or more has always been voted down.
Who are the forces of darkness in this case? The Tories?!
May I mention Kadima, Meretz, Hatunah and Independence as other examples besides Yesh Atid and Likud Beiteinu parties.
Or Barak, Livni, Mofaz, Peretz and Sharon besides Lapid and Herzog as plants or leaders who created parties out of thin air only to try and stay in power.
Of course in a relationship the parties can separate but in the Middle East this is more problematic. How does Israel change it's behaviour? There must be some Israelis who believe they are better than this. At the moment their behaviour is indefensible even by their friends. Something must be done for their own sake, let alone the children of Gaza.
In 2007 the palestinian authority broke in two with Hamas in control in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank. The Israeli blockade of Gaza dates from then, because Hamas refused to:
1) Desist from violent attacks on Israel
2) Recognise Israels right to exist
3) Respect existing agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel
None of these are unreasonable preconditions for a more permanent settlement. Hamas's rejection of these is tantamount to a declaration of war.
I am a Lib Dem and frankly surprised that Israel has tolerated Hamas attacks as long as it has.
Israel can trade land for peace, it did in 77 with Egypt and attempted to in 2005 with the PLA.
War is hell and involves mass killing, those who preach holy war should not be surprised that they get an unholy response from their enemy.
That is the only thing that will work.
Islamic militants (ISIS?, Al-Nusra?, someone else?) in Lebanon are fighting to capture the town of Arsal, there are battles going on right now between the Lebanese army and those militants close by after the Lebanese police arrest a Jihadist.
http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/169556/1408020139-lbci-news
http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/169612/sources-to-lbci-laf-soldiers-killed-others-injured
What's even tricksier about it is that the concept of Israel is wrapped up with a specifically _Jewish_ state. The phrasing often has "as a Jewish state" tacked on the end. That means it stops existing as soon as it has a non-Jewish majority, which may well happen if or not that long after the people who have a historical right to live in the territory are allowed their homes back. It may also happen in future even without that due to demographic changes. For Israel to have a right to exist means a bunch of non-Jews have a duty to leave or not be born.
This absolutely is an unreasonable precondition. It's not just unreasonable, it's completely ridiculous. Nobody who has thought it through could possibly propose it in good faith, and any Palestinian organization that claims to agree with it is lying.
In the same way, the right to return has seen unreasonable positions. The Israelis have proposed full market value as compensation for land lost 50 years ago. The Palestinians want the specific patch of land, and all buildings put up since to be demolished without compensation for the people who erected them and have been using them in the last 50 years. A tad unreasonable, no?
Tunnels built to attack farming communities.
And the Right to Return specifically relates to the 1948/67 exoduses not more recent illegal settlements. But I'm sure you've done your research and were just being deliberately misleading for a debatorial advantage
It's a tricksy phrase designed to make denying it _sound_ inflammatory, so if the goal was to reduce the tension and get to a deal, the solution would be to stop using that phrase. Sure Hamas has a bunch of unreasonable positions, like the bit in that quote in their charter about killing all the Jews, and how they're going to hide behind the trees, but the trees are going to tell snitch on them, apart from one particular tree, which is a _Jewish_ tree. But it's not unreasonable to deny that Israel has a right to exist. On the contrary, it's unreasonable to claim that Israel has a right to exist.
The one-sided criticism of Israel that we see in the western media is unfair. *that's* what I'm reciting against
Edit to add: Just because Israel doesn't have a right to exist doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to self-defence.
The death they bring does not discriminate.
Israel may still have a right to self-defence, so if Egypt tried to invade them and take over the country they'd have a right to use force to defend themselves.
If you find this confusing, it's because we're talking about an expression that's been carefully designed to confuse you.
For the first time since this time last year.
I did a quick calculation of UKIPs monthly figures for May June and July 2013 against 2014
2013
May 16%
June 14%
July 12%
2014
May 15%
June 15%
July 13%
So in fact UKIP on these rough figures are 1 point up on the same time last year. That would seem to cast doubt about any assertions around UKIP and gravity. Perhaps UKIP voters are out in the garden enjoying barbecues and don't hear the phone and can't be fussed with their e-mail or are all enjoying their holidays before the kids finish school)?.
One shouldn't read any significance into what probably are purely seasonal figures.........
Like I say, if we want to talk about geopolitics instead of metaphysical puzzles, we should talk about things like the right to self-defence.
And you still haven't answered whether you think the other two demands are reasonable ones for Israel to make.
Had she been on a short list of candidates at Crewe and Nantwich as well?
The UK has a right to be a Christian country at any given time if that's what its inhabitants choose, but that's a different thing from the right to exist as a Christian country.
[Edited for clarity.]
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/27/report-hamas-used-ceasefire-to-execute-25-gazans-accused-of-treachery-blamed-israel-for-deaths/
Lovely people these. Of course we should be pulling out the stops to protect them.
I think I might give PB and other news blogs a miss on the day after the referendum - They'll be some VERY grumpy Nat's around I fear.
You wish, reality will be very different for you
http://www.gaytlvguide.com/the-guide/pride-parade
with
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/07/iran-executes-men-homosexuality-charges
And yes, I'm sure this is another reason Hamas wants to wipe out Israel. The people responsible for the second story are amongst Hamas' most important backers of course.
Let me be clear. A military commander firing artillery shells into civilian areas will kill indiscriminately. They is no other logic to the use of such weapons.
Politicians call it "unintended collateral damage". The parents of dead children will rightly reject such sophistry as indeed would you and I if our own offspring were decimated into dozens of parts.
He is one of those rare modern politicians who puts his own voters first, and every other b8gger nowhere.
He has a complete disregard for Israel's 'position in the international community'. Many modern politicians start with their country's 'position in the international community' and sell their voters a deal they think that community will countenance in their country's case.
Flat spots are indeed tremendously serious. A big reason Vettel was down in 7th (or so) in Hungary was because he spun and flat-spotted a set of new tyres.
Eyes still not used to my new glasses. It's an odd feeling.
In practice, Hamas is advocating Israel move from a state of existence to a state of non- existence. At this point the right to self defend (ie maintain the status quo) takes primacy.
Firstly the commander fired blind in which case the attack was unjustified or secondly the targets were acquired and area shelling was deployed that killed the children.
Neither situation is especially edifying.
To form good opinions on this stuff you really need to have been following the various agreements and actions on the ground with at least the kind of day-to-day obsessiveness we deploy to work out how strong Liberal Democrat incumbency will be and how Labour will perform compared to UNS. It's not enough just to tune in when the Western media does. If anybody here has that kind of expertise on the ins and outs of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, they're not sharing it with us.
War, as Sherman rightly observed, is hell.
Based on the conversations I've had with the people I know in Jerusalem, it appears to be "religious nutters" [phrase used by my primary contact, who is an orthodox Jew] doing it in a deliberatively provocative way. The government is unable/unwilling to kick them out of the new settlements ( because the "settler party" has a small number of seats in the Knesset but are critical votes.
Like I say I'm out of my depth here and for all I know maybe it's possible to set up a virtuous circle where you build trust and gradually isolate the nut-jobs, but at the very least it doesn't seem _obvious_ that everybody should be just picking up the previous agreement where they left off.
However let me be clear. The Irsaeli government and IDF do knowingly target children. They know full well that the non smart muntions they use will definitely kill children.
..........................................................................
Israel no longer cares what the rest of the world think. Even the United States influence is limited.
However it should concern Israel that its friends in the world shake their heads in disbelief that a country who post WWII enjoyed the sympathy and respect of much of the world has lost its way so badly.
No military conflict lasts forever. At some point Israel will need its' friends once more.
Actually I've never really been fussed by what Scotland does and I've always thought there was good chance of Scotland becoming independent.
Just can't see it happening right now. The polls are all saying the same thing (namely that NO will win) and the SNP campaign just seems to be faltering really - You don't look like winners with The Big Mo to me. It feel's like you hit the "high point" with *THAT* ICM poll around April and have been slowly deflating ever since.
We'll see...
Non smart munitions are exactly that.. non smart ..they kill everyone.. regardless of age and gender. So do the smart ones.
It's an uncomfortable truth that no western government will acknowledge for obvious reasons.
Mistakes are made in war. This was probably one of them.
How did the Palestinians reciprocate? By rocket attacks...