Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

Chairman Woodie said:
Click to expand...


Getting more interesting, relations between them was genuinely hostile for a long time, with Israel supporting the South during the Civil War and bombing targets in Sudan on occasion, and Sudan hosting a range of militant groups targeting Israel.

Just look at the line-up at this Islamic Conference hosted in Khartoum in the early 90s :eek: :

Popular Arab and Islamic Congress

Let’s see if Riyadh decides to get in on this just before the election.
 
2cents said:
Getting more interesting, relations between them was genuinely hostile for a long time, with Israel supporting the South during the Civil War and bombing targets in Sudan on occasion, and Sudan hosting a range of militant groups targeting Israel.

Just look at the line-up at this Islamic Conference hosted in Khartoum in the early 90s :eek: :

Popular Arab and Islamic Congress

Let’s see if Riyadh decides to get in on this just before the election.
Click to expand...

I sense this deal with the Sudan will be a cold peace. I'm more optimistic about the UAE and Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia might hold off to see how relations develop between Israel and the UAE, ectra. But it'll happen eventually.

I expect Oman will follow soon too.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-israel-and-apartheid-prophecy-or-description

The Guardian view on Israel and apartheid: prophecy or description?
Editorial

With no roadmap for peace, Israel risks being compared to the old South Africa


The Guardian appears to endorse B'Tselem's recent position paper which concludes that "the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is organized under a single principle: advancing and cementing the supremacy of one group - Jews - over another - Palestinians"; "A regime that uses laws, practices and organized violence to cement the supremacy of one group over another is an apartheid regime."
 
Super Hans said:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-israel-and-apartheid-prophecy-or-description

The Guardian view on Israel and apartheid: prophecy or description?
Editorial

With no roadmap for peace, Israel risks being compared to the old South Africa


The Guardian appears to endorse B'Tselem's recent position paper which concludes that "the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is organized under a single principle: advancing and cementing the supremacy of one group - Jews - over another - Palestinians"; "A regime that uses laws, practices and organized violence to cement the supremacy of one group over another is an apartheid regime."
Click to expand...

Risks?

There are several current similarities. Gaza for one is simply another Bantustan.
 
FireballXL5 said:
Hasn't it always been like that for the last 60 odd years?
Click to expand...
For a long time there was hope, even belief, that it was temporary, despite Israel's investment of billions on settlements and infrastructure which in hindsight they were never going to flush down the toilet. There appears to be a growing realization now that the occupation is permanent, a de facto annexation. That reality is going to make it increasingly difficult for Israel to claim with any credibility that it is a democracy.
 
If anyone wants to read more about what @berbatrick has shown, then there's a great MSF article which I've linked below.


https://www.doctorswithoutborders.o...ut-israels-covid-19-vaccination-success-story

Matthias Kennes is a registered nurse and medical referent for the Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) COVID-19 response in Hebron, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Here, he writes about the striking inequities in access to COVID-19 vaccines for Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Click to expand...
As a medic, I am shocked. The internationally acclaimed COVID-19 vaccination success of Israel has a dark side: the consequences of which are being felt cruelly in the West Bank Palestinian territory where I work, and in the blockaded Gaza Strip where my MSF colleagues work.

PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES: OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO BASIC HEALTH CARE
Israel has managed to vaccinate nearly 4.2 million people with a first dose—that’s around 50 percent of the population—and 2.8 million people with the full two doses, more than 30 percent of the population.
Meanwhile, only several thousand doses are available in the Palestinian West Bank, and a delivery of 20,000 reported to have arrived last weekend in Gaza scarcely scratches at the surface of the needs. At a generous maximum, assuming that the 35,000 reported Sputnik and Moderna vaccines are all available, that would be around 0.8 percent of the Palestinian population.


To make that clearer, you are over 60 times more likely to have a vaccination in Israel than in Palestine. According to the Geneva Conventions, Israel has a responsibility as an occupying power to ensure the medical supplies of the occupied population, including “adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventative measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics” to “the fullest extent of the means available to it.”
"If asked why vulnerable people cannot be vaccinated in Palestine, I do not know how to answer. It is inexplicable and unbelievable. Worse than that—it is unjust and cruel."
Click to expand...
I came to Hebron with an MSF team specifically to help with the COVID-19 response. In December last year, when the second wave of the pandemic hit the West Bank, the Dura hospital where we are supporting medical assistance was full of COVID-19 patients. We had mostly elderly people, many with underlying conditions such as diabetes or other chronic diseases. Patients died. Sick COVID-19 patients have died in hospitals around the world, but these patients died on my watch, and that pains me.
Click to expand...
 
So we've arrived at the point of free form antisemitic projectivity again.

[edit: quote deleted]
 
Last edited:
Synco said:
So we've arrived at the point of free form antisemitic projectivity again.

Quoted, in case it disappears somehow:
Click to expand...

It was inappropriate whatever my context may have been. I realise now it was anti Semitic rather than anti Israel. I have been correctly reprimanded and will be careful.
 
Dumbstar said:
It was inappropriate whatever my context may have been. I realise now it was anti Semitic rather than anti Israel. I have been correctly reprimanded and will be careful.
Click to expand...
Was it your decision to delete it? Then I would delete it as well.
 
"If I don't steal it, someone else will steal it so what's the problem?"

I'll give him credit, at least he's being honest to himself and the whole state of his country. Lovely people.
 
VorZakone said:
I wonder if Israel realizes it's losing the PR game.
Click to expand...

They don't care. Is cultural genocide, small bites little by little, nothing is done till palestine disappearand then it will be like the tweet video "Palestine doesn't exist anymore, what's the problem"?

Israel government is pure evil and while china, russia are punished or scolded to a certain degree, Israel is rewarded with considering Jerusalemt as capital. maybe in 40 years will exist a kind of enlightnment like the apartheid in South africa but it will be too late

How the UN considered that 1% of the population deserved half the territory of palestine (prior the 6 days war) in their resolution and why the Hmong, kurds and many others don't deserve their territory and after they get their territory, they invade little by little with illegal settlements and a more obvious signs of appartheid, speak volumes of the hypocresy of the international comunity. They don't care of PR anymore, nothing will be done
 
VorZakone said:
I wonder if Israel realizes it's losing the PR game.
Click to expand...

What PR game? What sanctions are being out on them? What actions are foreign governments taking against them other than empty votes at the UN? The one legitimate, peaceful, form of protest from the outside world, BDS, has been labeled as anti-semitic in parts of the world who can actually impact policy change there.

Nothing will ever be done against them, they aren't idiots to continue what they're doing. They know no one will dare speak out against them because of the anti-semitism tag.
 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/1/what-is-happening-in-occupied-east-jerusalems-sheikh-jarrah

What is happening in occupied East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah?
Israel ordered six Palestinian families to leave their homes in Sheikh Jarrah on May 2 to make way for Jewish settlers.

Dozens of Palestinians are facing imminent dispossession from their homes in the occupied East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, in what they say is a move to force them out and replace it entirely with a Jewish settlement.

The Jerusalem District Court ruled at least six families must vacate their homes in Sheikh Jarrah on Sunday, despite living there for generations.

The same court ruled seven other families should leave their homes by August 1. In total, 58 people, including 17 children, are set to be forcibly displaced to make way for Jewish settlers.

The court rulings are a culmination of a decades-long struggle for these Palestinians to stay in their homes. In 1972, several Jewish settler organisations filed a lawsuit against the Palestinian families living in Sheikh Jarrah, alleging the land originally belonged to Jews.

These groups, mostly funded by donors from the United States, have waged a relentless battle that resulted in the displacement of 43 Palestinians in 2002, as well as the Hanoun and Ghawi families in 2008 and the Shamasneh family in 2017.
Click to expand...

This is disgusting.
 
4bars said:
the UN considered that 1% of the population deserved half the territory of palestine (prior the 6 days war) in their resolution
Click to expand...

Your history is all wrong here.
 
2cents said:
Your history is all wrong here.
Click to expand...

Thanks for correcting me in my way off data. I guess is one of this mantras that i read somewhere and I made it my own. I hate to give false information

The correct data is that from what I read:

The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine

The point it still valid though without my exaggerate completely incorrect previous data
 
4bars said:
Thanks for correcting me in my way off data. I guess is one of this mantras that i read somewhere and I made it my own. I hate to give false information

The correct data is that from what I read:

The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine

The point it still valid though without my exaggerate completely incorrect previous data
Click to expand...

You’ve also got your wars mixed up. UN partition plan kicked off the 1948 war, not the 6-Day War which was 1967.

A bit of context might help make the UN proposal comprehensible and contrast with the two counter-examples (Kurds and Hmong) you’ve cited. Around the time of the Balfour Declaration (1917) the Jewish population was somewhere close to 10%. Although there was always a small Jewish population in Ottoman Palestine, and Jerusalem probably had a Jewish plurality by the second half of the 19th century, the 10% was largely the result of migration from the Russian Empire from the early 1880s onward, in response to growing antisemitism there (although the vast majority of Russian Jews who left went elsewhere).

By the time of the first serious proposal to partition Palestine into two states (Peel Commission 1937), the Jewish population was probably approaching 30%, the growth largely due to migration in response to the rise of antisemitism in Poland (1920s) and especially Germany (1930s), combined with limits placed on migration to America in the mid-1920s. The Peel proposal allocated I think slightly less than 20% to the proposed Jewish state. At this point British authorities put an end to legal Jewish migration to Palestine and the massive growth of the 1930s stopped. The partition plan was abandoned for the time being, although a Jewish state-within-a-state already effectively existed.

It was picked up again in 1947 when the British decided to hand over responsibility to the UN. As you note, the new proposal allocated a slight majority of the land to around a third of the population. The proposal recognized realities on the ground - it’s not clear what if anything could have prevented the emergence of a Jewish state at this point. It also reflected moral and practical considerations produced by the events in Europe of the previous decade e.g. the persuasive moral logic of a Jewish state in the aftermath of the Holocaust and the need to find somewhere for Jewish survivors still in limbo to go (this latter consideration explains in part the decision to allocate the Negev to the Jewish state, which in turn largely explains the jump from the Peel Commission’s 20% to the UN’s 55%).

None of this need necessarily justify the allocation of even 1% to a Jewish state, or suggest that Jewish claims to statehood were/are more legitimate than those of other ethnic/national groups. However there is nothing especially mysterious about the proposal and how it was reached, particularly in the broader international context of the first half of the 20th century.
 
2cents said:
You’ve also got your wars mixed up. UN partition plan kicked off the 1948 war, not the 6-Day War which was 1967.

A bit of context might help make the UN proposal comprehensible and contrast with the two counter-examples (Kurds and Hmong) you’ve cited. Around the time of the Balfour Declaration (1917) the Jewish population was somewhere close to 10%. Although there was always a small Jewish population in Ottoman Palestine, and Jerusalem probably had a Jewish plurality by the second half of the 19th century, the 10% was largely the result of migration from the Russian Empire from the early 1880s onward, in response to growing antisemitism there (although the vast majority of Russian Jews who left went elsewhere).

By the time of the first serious proposal to partition Palestine into two states (Peel Commission 1937), the Jewish population was probably approaching 30%, the growth largely due to migration in response to the rise of antisemitism in Poland (1920s) and especially Germany (1930s), combined with limits placed on migration to America in the mid-1920s. The Peel proposal allocated I think slightly less than 20% to the proposed Jewish state. At this point British authorities put an end to legal Jewish migration to Palestine and the massive growth of the 1930s stopped. The partition plan was abandoned for the time being, although a Jewish state-within-a-state already effectively existed.

It was picked up again in 1947 when the British decided to hand over responsibility to the UN. As you note, the new proposal allocated a slight majority of the land to around a third of the population. The proposal recognized realities on the ground - it’s not clear what if anything could have prevented the emergence of a Jewish state at this point. It also reflected moral and practical considerations produced by the events in Europe of the previous decade e.g. the persuasive moral logic of a Jewish state in the aftermath of the Holocaust and the need to find somewhere for Jewish survivors still in limbo to go (this latter consideration explains in part the decision to allocate the Negev to the Jewish state, which in turn largely explains the jump from the Peel Commission’s 20% to the UN’s 55%).

None of this need necessarily justify the allocation of even 1% to a Jewish state, or suggest that Jewish claims to statehood were/are more legitimate than those of other ethnic/national groups. However there is nothing especially mysterious about the proposal and how it was reached, particularly in the broader international context of the first half of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Thank yoou for the detailed explanation. Is always a pleasure reading your socio-politco-historical posts and articles
 
VorZakone said:
I wonder if Israel realizes it's losing the PR game.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians hate Abu Mazen. He is in cahoots with the Israelis according to the Palestinians. He does not care about the Palestinians. It is an all act. No one cares about the Palestinians. Maybe Jordan because they have got a lot of Palestinians and the refugee camps and the Queen being a Palestinian. The rest of the Arab countries do not care much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.