Striving to make sense of the Middle East

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

32 minutes ago, Herman said:

Is there any verifiable evidence for what you are reporting? 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/15/women-male-guardian-hamas-gaza-strip

[cambridgeshire canary 6,833]

37 minutes ago, Herman said:

Is there any verifiable evidence for what you are reporting? 

Look up Sharia law.

[Herman 9,838]

36 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Look up Sharia law.

What about the bit that looks like you made up? 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,833]

5 minutes ago, Herman said:

What about the bit that looks like you made up? 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/15/women-male-guardian-hamas-gaza-strip

 

Ok, ok.. They can travel..

 

But ONLY if men say they can first.

[Herman 9,838]

1 hour ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

 

Oh, and Hamas are currently selling the food aid that America has given them to their own people. That's right, selling it. Food aid. For money.

This part?? 

[Naturalcynic 677]

1 hour ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/15/women-male-guardian-hamas-gaza-strip

 

Ok, ok.. They can travel..

 

But ONLY if men say they can first.

Although presumably homosexuality is legal in Gaza and gay marriage recognised (as it is in Israel), because otherwise why would Queers for Palestine take part in the marches alongside the Hamas supporters?

Edited April 1 by Naturalcynic

[Aggy 766]

8 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

There’s never been a country called Palestine.

The ancient Egyptians, Greeks and romans all referred to a place which translates to Palestine. 

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

I see the Israelis or is it just Netanyahu still trying to ignite a larger war ....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/01/israeli-airstrike-on-iranian-consulate-in-damascus-kills-six-including-irgc-commander

Edited April 1 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

On 01/04/2024 at 18:50, Yellow Fever said:

I see the Israelis or is it just Netanyahu still trying to ignite a larger war ....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/01/israeli-airstrike-on-iranian-consulate-in-damascus-kills-six-including-irgc-commander

The Iranians are habitual rule breakers openly pursuing Israel's destruction through all subversive means possible. They've kidnapped British subjects to use as political tools in the past in the knowledge that we'll play by the rules, which is why they keep doing it. Why should we shed tears on Iran's behalf just because they're on the wrong end of someone else breaking the rules?

Iran doesn't even recognise Israel diplomatically. There's no reason for Israel not to regard Iran as a legitimate target given Iran's actions against it.

Edited April 2 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

The sad loss of the aid workers seems to have shocked and galvanized the world, Israel's usual allies amongst them.

Of course such 'accidents' appear to be happening all the time to Palestinian civilians - but it seems they don't count. All 32,000 of them mostly women and children.

The phrase "A war on humanity" I heard used last night. Sums it up.

Edited April 3 by Yellow Fever

[Herman 9,838]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

The sad loss of the aid workers seems to have shocked and galvanized the world, Israel's usual allies amongst them.

Of course such 'accidents' appear to be happening all the time to Palestinian civilians - but it seems they don't count. All 32,000 of them mostly women and children.

The phrase "A war on humanity" I heard used last night. Sums it up.

Netanyahu smirking through his apology.!!Anybody still supporting this murderous regime needs to have a word with themselves. 

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

It does seem to be a watershed moment -  I see several Tories saying we should/must stop arming Israel.

The sad truth is that this end game was long foretold by many senior retired generals both in the UK and US well before Christmas last year. It is almost impossible to destroy Hamas militarily without what was thought of as an unimaginable loss of innocent civilian lives and destruction (We are at Hiroshima scale already). Furthermore the attempt can only make matters worse long term and damage Israel. That is not to say that some proportional response wasn't due to Hamas for 7/10. 

It isn't even about the hostages - as many a negotiator has stated - you can't get the hostages back if your pitch to Hamas is - give us the hostages back and then we're going to kill you!  

No - Very very sadly this has long been about Netanyahu and his right wing government using 7/10 as an excuse to go on some sort of genocidal once and for all crushing of the Palestinians in Gaza, and the West bank generally. 

Guilty as charged.

 

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

6 hours ago, Herman said:

Netanyahu smirking through his apology.!!Anybody still supporting this murderous regime needs to have a word with themselves. 

Precisely. He and the extremists like Smotrich are the bigger problem of the two. By all means get the Hamas powers that be in the Hague, but he should be in there alongside them. 

It's obvious what he's after. He wants all of Palestine, but rather than annex it outright, which would justifiably be met with uproar, he's doing it bit-by-bit.

Feel sorry for most normal citizens of both countries. Plenty of Israelis going on the protests again though, so let's hope they succeed.

Edited April 3 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Precisely. He and the extremists like Smotrich are the bigger problem of the two. By all means get the Hamas powers that be in the Hague, but he should be in there alongside them. 

It's obvious what he's after. He wants all of Palestine, but rather than annex it outright, which would justifiably be met with uproar, he's doing it bit-by-bit.

Feel sorry for most normal citizens of both countries. Plenty of Israelis going on the protests again though, so let's hope they succeed.

I'm reading a book by Tim Marshall called Prisoners of Geography, which delves into how the geography of countries shape the thinking.

One thing struck me when it was discussing why India and China aren't always at each other's throats as two major powers neighbouring each other. The answer? A load of mountains in the way that make it next door to impossible to attack each other.

It also delves into a lot of how colonial powers made a complete mess of paritioning nations because they made no consideration at all of how shaping nations is dependent on geography.

The problem is that the partitioning of mandatory Palestine was disastrous in terms of security considerations from either perspective when looking on the threat posed by the neighbour if the neighbours are sworn enemies, which, lets face it, the Israelis and the Palestinians are. In a way, it's reinforced by how India and Pakistan are also at each other's throats in spite of that partitioning having been mutually endorsed at the time on the whole.

Truth be told, there are simply too many on both sides that don't see any humanity in the other side. What are the odds of ever building enough trust between the sides given the practicalities of how one side can threaten the other as independent sovereign countries with independent militaries?

Arguments on this subject are a never-ending cycle of armchair observers with no skin in the game trying to pin blame on one side or the other as to why there's no peace. Maybe it's neither side's fault; maybe it's both sides.

Genocide's a word that frequently comes up when talking about this subject, so maybe it's time to confront the elephant in the room. After nearly 80 years at each others throats, peace is just impossible and in the end there's going to be a genocide one way or the other, either from people being annihilated or from people being displaced, or maybe a mix of the two.In that scenario, it's then a question of whether the genocide of 4 or 5 million Palestinians, mostly Muslims in a world with billions of Muslims, many living in Muslim states of varying degrees of orthodoxy, or 7 or 8 million Jews in a world with about 15 million Jews of whom most  of the Jews outside of Israel face persecution wherever they are, is the lesser of the evils.

Obviously peace is preferable and actually I suppose whichever way it goes it won't affect me. Maybe the world would be more peaceful overall if the Arabs manage what Hitler couldn't. Sad, but there you go. The world is what it is, not as we would have it. It wouldn't be the first genocide and it probably wouldn't be the last either.

Edited April 3 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

Has the penny finally dropped on what's been happening?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

Good piece by Jeremy Bowen summing everything up. Ironically, one of the Kibbutzes that was massacred by Hamas to launch this latest round was largely left-wing and desiring a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians.

Also points to polls of the Palestinians who largely support Hamas actions and reject a two-state solution in favour of a one-state solution that no Israeli would ever accept, no matter how left wing they were.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68735869

Edited April 7 by littleyellowbirdie

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

I am still reading articles (in the Post and one today in The Guardian) that make a fundamental mistake about Israel, still regarding it as part of a morally tractable western Liberal world rather than the absolutist pre-enlightenment country demographic changes have created. 

There are no words of caution or disapproval that will do any good, and only one action. Which is the US cutting off all money and all arms. And no, I do not see that happening. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,833]

9 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Good piece by Jeremy Bowen summing everything up. Ironically, one of the Kibbutzes that was massacred by Hamas to launch this latest round was largely left-wing and desiring a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians.

Also points to polls of the Palestinians who largely support Hamas actions and reject a two-state solution in favour of a one-state solution that no Israeli would ever accept, no matter how left wing they were.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68735869

Almost like endless killings and death won't solve anything. As I have said before even the IRA were smart enough to know that they had to get into politics and start sitting around a table and talking to get things solved.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

26 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am still reading articles (in the Post and one today in The Guardian) that make a fundamental mistake about Israel, still regarding it as part of a morally tractable western Liberal world rather than the absolutist pre-enlightenment country demographic changes have created. 

There are no words of caution or disapproval that will do any good, and only one action. Which is the US cutting off all money and all arms. And no, I do not see that happening. 

As one of the few survivors of one of the Kibbutz massacres put it, Hamas puts down weapons and the war stops and conversations start; Israel puts down weapons, Israel stops existing.

Edited April 7 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

14 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Almost like endless killings and death won't solve anything. As I have said before even the IRA were smart enough to know that they had to get into politics and start sitting around a table and talking to get things solved.

Absolutely. That article points to polls that demonstrate that Palestinians largely support what Hamas did and want a 'one-state solution' which is simply deluded.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Absolutely. That article points to polls that demonstrate that Palestinians largely support what Hamas did and want a 'one-state solution' which is simply deluded.

And Hamas themselves say they intend to liquidate Israel, they don't even hide this, so the idea of a two-state solution is a total non-starter. Once people accept that Hamas means what they say, only then can we begin to move forward. Until then, there can only be war and all the consequences that go with that.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

13 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

And Hamas themselves say they intend to liquidate Israel, they don't even hide this, so the idea of a two-state solution is a total non-starter. Once people accept that Hamas means what they say, only then can we begin to move forward. Until then, there can only be war and all the consequences that go with that.

Yeah, I mean, basically the 'one-state solution' is liquidating Israel as 'the Jewish state'. As I see it, there is no grounds for demanding Israel's eradication simply because it's Jewish given that it exists in a region full to the brim of theocracies of varying degrees of orthodoxy. Who's demanding Pakistan's liquidation? 

Edited April 7 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,838]

And if Israel had treated the Palestinians with any level of respect and dignity over these many decades then Hamas wouldn't have existed. Treat people like this, give them no hope and don't be shocked when they head to the extremes.

About time people stopped treating history as an "interesting" GCSE option.

[Naturalcynic 677]

57 minutes ago, Herman said:

And if Israel had treated the Palestinians with any level of respect and dignity over these many decades then Hamas wouldn't have existed. Treat people like this, give them no hope and don't be shocked when they head to the extremes.

About time people stopped treating history as an "interesting" GCSE option.

And time that some people stopped bending over backwards to blame Israel for the whole sorry situation despite the fact that it’s faced a permanent existential threat since 1948.

[Herman 9,838]

5 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

And time that some people stopped bending over backwards to blame Israel for the whole sorry situation despite the fact that it’s faced a permanent existential threat since 1948.

And that is where history can tell you why it has been under threat since it's inception. 

Nothing is black and white. Start looking at things from different angles. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

5 hours ago, Herman said:

And if Israel had treated the Palestinians with any level of respect and dignity over these many decades then Hamas wouldn't have existed. Treat people like this, give them no hope and don't be shocked when they head to the extremes.

About time people stopped treating history as an "interesting" GCSE option.

How much dignity and respect is tied up in wanting a groups's complete eradication would you say, as per the stated aims of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and the PLO before Hamas? How much respect should you have for people who openly want you dead?

Edited April 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

And that is where history can tell you why it has been under threat since it's inception. 

Nothing is black and white. Start looking at things from different angles. 

Or start looking at it from the angle you personally think it should be looked at from and ignore the angles you're not interested in (basically any angle that might engender the tiniest bit of sympathy for the Israeli position).

As asked many times without really being addressed, Pakistan was founded more or less the same way, and yet somehow nobody questions its right to exist as an Islamic theocracy on its own terms in stark contrast to Israel and the existence of both as recognised sovereign states in international law. Yet somehow the popularly held position in the Arab world that Israel shouldn't exist, a genocidal sentiment if ever there was one given its existence for 70+ years and multiple generations being born there, is so acceptable that it can be openly expressed on our own streets with little in the way of objection.

Maybe you should start thinking about that angle a bit more; maybe you'd stop seeing things as so black and white.

Edited April 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,838]

I see only the slightest bit of similarities between Pakistan and Israel so I'm not sure why you are basing a whole level of whataboutery on them?! 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

I see only the slightest bit of similarities between Pakistan and Israel so I'm not sure why you are basing a whole level of whataboutery on them?! 

The continued complaints of  'whataboutery' to try and dismiss valid comparisons are a bit tiresome. If you see only slight similarities between the partitioning of the territory of mandatory Palestine into Israel and Palestine and the partitioning of imperial India at its time of independence then you're not looking hard enough.

Gandhi didn't want Pakistan to be established as a state, by the way, favouring a more secular 'one-state solution' for a post-Imperial India as a whole that the Muslim minority didn't want in that instance (just like the Jewish inhabitants of mandatory Palestine - another similarity *gasp*). In that scenario, a two-state solution where one of them was an Islamic theocracy was preferable to the Muslims compared to a more secular India with multiple religions catered for.

Where they do differ is that India and Pakistan did mutually accept the terms put on them allowing normalised, if sometimes tense, relations as two states, whereas the Israelis accepted the terms of the partitioning of mandatory Palestine while the Palestinians with the rest of the Arab world denounced the resolution and vowed to wipe the Israelis off the map and have continued to shoot themselves in the foot in the same way ever since.

Edited April 8 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The continued complaints of  'whataboutery' to try and dismiss valid comparisons are a bit tiresome. If you see only slight similarities between the partitioning of the territory of mandatory Palestine into Israel and Palestine and the partitioning of imperial India at its time of independence then you're not looking hard enough.

Gandhi didn't want Pakistan to be established as a state, by the way, favouring a more secular 'one-state solution' for a post-Imperial India as a whole that the Muslim minority didn't want in that instance (just like the Jewish inhabitants of mandatory Palestine - another similarity *gasp*). In that scenario, a two-state solution where one of them was an Islamic theocracy was preferable to the Muslims compared to a more secular India with multiple religions catered for.

Where they do differ is that India and Pakistan did mutually accept the terms put on them allowing normalised, if sometimes tense, relations as two states, whereas the Israelis accepted the terms of the partitioning of mandatory Palestine while the Palestinians with the rest of the Arab world denounced the resolution and vowed to wipe the Israelis off the map and have continued to shoot themselves in the foot in the same way ever since.

Possibly because the Jews had only just started immigrating to the area (mainly of European descent) where they had been previously a small minority. 

Forget the historical two millenia link to the area. It only happened to salve our (European) consciences as a late imperial dictat following our (not the Arabs) behaviour culminating in the holocaust.