Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

Pogue Mahone said:
It's the first time I've really got the "but look what happened in Syria" argument. It's not about moral relativity, so much as highlighting the intense scrutiny and criticism that Israel undergoes compared to other nations in which war crimes also occur. A scrutiny that has to be fuelled by an underlying mood of anti-semitism. I can't come up with any other reasonable explanation. Again, this doesn't justify or explain the massacre of civilians but it does higlight the justifiable sense of persecution and paranoia that is partly responsible for the regreattable decisions made by the Israel leaders.
Click to expand...
I think it's more likely that the world being more familiar with Israel and Israel's very close relationship with western countries, the US in particular, that causes more criticism than other countries committing atrocities. Calling antisemitism every time someone says Israel are committing horrible crimes is just lazy and not the root of the criticism. There are undoubtedly a lot of antisemitic folk out there, but I have no reason to think there's more of them than there are other types of racists.
 
Kaos said:
Syria has been regarded as a 'rogue' state which has faced sanctions and has generally always been in the aiming scope of Western nations. What's happening there is also a civil war between the government and very well armed Islamist factions backed by a consortium of nations in the Middle East - its a level playing field and a different beast altogether.

Israel is an allegedly civilised state that's a close ally to the US and many European nations, its been regarded as an occupying force for 60 years and has killed 1400 Palestinians - most of which are children, while losing a handful of civilians themselves. Naturally, its going to receive more scrutiny. Regardless, the "they did it too" argument is still a very tenuous one that should never be accepted as justification.
Click to expand...

Defnitely not a justification, just provides a bit of context. When you look at the scale of protest and anti-Israeli sentiment worldwide it does seem disproportionate. What happened in Syria and the actions of ISIS are very different in terms of the balance of power between the opposing sides but there's been some unspeakable atrocities taking place in both conflicts (as well as a much larger number of child/civilian dead) and a distinct lack of people taking to the streets of New York, London and Paris to demand that their governments intervene. This absolutely doesn't justify what is taking place (just to repeat myself) but does explain the paranoia and sense of persecution that probably makes it hard for Israeli people to want their government to take moral high-ground and work towards a peaceful solution. If you're convinced that everybody hates you and doesn't even want you to exist, what hope do you have of a long term positive outcome if you enter into negotiations?

Some interesting links in that piece too. I hadn't previously seen the BBC report on the inaccuracy of many of the images used in social media.

 
Pogue Mahone said:
Dunno if it's my naturally contrary nature but, despite my revulsion at what is happening, I do find myself digging for reasonable opposing opinions to the overwhelming consensus in here (and all over my fecking facebook feed)

I posted one such piece a good few pages back. Here's another one, which does (IMHO) make some fairly compelling points in defence of Israel. The fact that the author concludes by unequivocally condemning Israel for many of it's actions makes the arguments within all the more plausible.

It's the first time I've really got the "but look what happened in Syria" argument. It's not about moral relativity, so much as highlighting the intense scrutiny and criticism that Israel undergoes compared to other nations in which war crimes also occur. A scrutiny that has to be fuelled by an underlying mood of anti-semitism. I can't come up with any other reasonable explanation. Again, this doesn't justify or explain the massacre of civilians but it does higlight the justifiable sense of persecution and paranoia that is partly responsible for the regreattable decisions made by the Israel leaders.
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly anti-semitism is one of the primary reasons that the Israel-Palestine situation gets more coverage than other conflicts, but there are also other reasons, such as the history going back thousands of years, the narrative of the Jews managing to turn around their fate following the holocaust and the fact that Israel feels more 'western' than other countries in the region. But anti-semitism is still definitely at play underneath.

A similar thing can be said when people argue that it is wrong and incompatible with democratic principles for Israel to be defined as a Jewish state. I would agree that states defined on ethnic/religious grounds are not sustainable in the long term, but there are dozens of them around the world (Christian, Muslim and one Jewish state). Talking as if Israel is the only hypocritical democracy in this sense is misleading.

I also think a similar thing can be said regarding the formation of Israel. Yes, it was largely a case of mass movement of people driving many locals from the land. But people overlook the fact that this is how the vast majority of nations have been formed across history. It's not specific to Israel, that is just a more recent example.

None of this makes Israeli policy more justifiable, but I think you are right that the high relative amount of coverage this one country and conflict generates is probably due in part to antisemitism, or at least the fact that the Jews being in a position of power is still quite a novel thing historically speaking. There's probably an element of the dog bites man / man bites dog newsworthy test at play.
 
Last edited:
moses said:
Christ on a bike. It's not like Israel's policy started with Hamas. This debate has nothing to do with Hamas. Israel's policy of oppression and killing begat Hamas, not the other way around. Stop with the Hamas bashing, it's not necessary, everybody agrees they are bastards.
Click to expand...

It's fair game to be critical of Israel prior to the emergence of Hamas. There are virtually no states on the planet which have not committed atrocities, including the UK and the USA. So while it's true that Israel has blood on its hands prior to Hamas, it's also true that Israel has been under constant threat of destruction since its founding after the Second World War.

But here we are today each of us on the caf desperately wishes there were a way to arrive at a genuine reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. There ARE forces for reconciliation among the Palestinians but as long as Hamas has the control over the Palestinians that it has, at least in Gaza, it's pretty clear that no reconciliation is possible.

It's not a matter of "bashing" Hamas any more that it was a matter of matter of "bashing" segregationists in the American South in the 1960s who defended Jim Crow laws. Both must be overcome. If there is a way to get Hamas to sit down and work out a genuine reconciliation with Israeli people, everyone here would be all for that. If not, Hamas must be dealt with in some other manner, unless what you're suggesting is that Israel has to go, if that's your position, fine. But if you agree that Israel has a right exist then you have to acknowledge that Hamas as currently constituted us the major obstacle to a genuine reconciliation.
 
Kaos said:
Syria has been regarded as a 'rogue' state which has faced sanctions and has generally always been in the aiming scope of Western nations. What's happening there is also a civil war between the government and very well armed Islamist factions backed by a consortium of nations in the Middle East - its a level playing field and a different beast altogether.
Click to expand...

See what you've just done - devalued Arab life in one foul swoop purely on the basis thats it's a different beast altogether, justifying your swerve by Israel's 'allegedly civilised' standards.
 
Gannicus said:
It's fair game to be critical of Israel prior to the emergence of Hamas. There are virtually no states on the planet which have not committed atrocities, including the UK and the USA. So while it's true that Israel has blood on its hands prior to Hamas, it's also true that Israel has been under constant threat of destruction since its founding after the Second World War.

But here we are today each of us on the caf desperately wishes there were a way to arrive at a genuine reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. There ARE forces for reconciliation among the Palestinians but as long as Hamas has the control over the Palestinians that it has, at least in Gaza, it's pretty clear that no reconciliation is possible.

It's not a matter of "bashing" Hamas any more that it was a matter of matter of "bashing" segregationists in the American South in the 1960s who defended Jim Crow laws. Both must be overcome. If there is a way to get Hamas to sit down and work out a genuine reconciliation with Israeli people, everyone here would be all for that. If not, Hamas must be dealt with in some other manner, unless what you're suggesting is that Israel has to go, if that's your position, fine. But if you agree that Israel has a right exist then you have to acknowledge that Hamas as currently constituted us the major obstacle to a genuine reconciliation.
Click to expand...

The major problem being that Hamas defines itself based on the destruction of Israel and the Jews. They are never going to reconcile.

I've realized just at this moment that the only hope is that the Palestinian people realize that their leaders in Hamas are sacrificing them for nothing (horrible policy for any form of government by the way) and eventually throw them out and replace them with moderates who want to work towards peace.
 
Dwazza Van Hernandez said:
The major problem being that Hamas defines itself based on the destruction of Israel and the Jews. They are never going to reconcile.

I've realized just at this moment that the only hope is that the Palestinian people realize that their leaders in Hamas are sacrificing them for nothing (horrible policy for any form of government by the way) and eventually throw them out and replace them with moderates who want to work towards peace.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. Which is where (yet again) the religious element to what is happening makes it all so self-perpetuating. With all this rhetoric about martyrdom and jihad. Religion makes people do crazy things in the hope of being allowed into paradise. Take away that kind of delusional thinking and you'd think the moderates would have a much better chance of being heard.
 
brewlio said:
Certainly not in the the way state of Israel was formed, no. The atrocities against European Jews during the holocaust were unforgivable. The whole process of the formation of the state and it's 'boundaries' should have been given more consideration before being implemented. Setting up a new country in the middle of it's fiercest rivals was folly in hindsight, and asking for trouble. If only the Israelis had kept their part of the 1950 deal, instead of continually wanting more land and more power in the region. The Israelites themselves are an ethnic group and we're never a country. The new state of Israel could have been set up anywhere. Maybe even in Europe, seeing it was the European Jews that had been mostly affected.

I think it should exist. Should just have existed elsewhere, with a lesser likelihood for conflict and bloodshed. The Israelis only obtained the 3k year dream of the promised land through other nations atrocities, now it seems they themselves are doing the very same. The formation of the state of Israel was far too rushed and poorly implemented imo. We can only blame the UN for that one.
Click to expand...

This is factually wrong.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Defnitely not a justification, just provides a bit of context. When you look at the scale of protest and anti-Israeli sentiment worldwide it does seem disproportionate. What happened in Syria and the actions of ISIS are very different in terms of the balance of power between the opposing sides but there's been some unspeakable atrocities taking place in both conflicts (as well as a much larger number of child/civilian dead) and a distinct lack of people taking to the streets of New York, London and Paris to demand that their governments intervene. This absolutely doesn't justify what is taking place (just to repeat myself) but does explain the paranoia and sense of persecution that probably makes it hard for Israeli people to want their government to take moral high-ground and work towards a peaceful solution. If you're convinced that everybody hates you and doesn't even want you to exist, what hope do you have of a long term positive outcome if you enter into negotiations?

Some interesting links in that piece too. I hadn't previously seen the BBC report on the inaccuracy of many of the images used in social media.

Click to expand...


Regarding what's happening in Iraq and Syria - a lot of the atrocities that can be accredited to Western intervention, so its understandable that folk are apprehensive about asking for intervention there. Israel on the other hand you can argue are being enabled by Western powers due to the diplomatic immunity they enjoy from the US's unconditional veto amongst the various weapon deals it enjoys.

I can understand the "never again" mentality harboured by the international Jewry, nonetheless there shouldn't be any reason why their existence will again come under threat. Something like the holocaust will never be allowed to happen in this day and age despite some crazy factions expressing intent to wipe them from the face of the earth. Then there's the comfort of them having one of the strongest militaries on the planet, an arsenal of nuclear weapons and the worlds leading superpower as their closest ally.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Agree completely. Which is where (yet again) the religious element to what is happening makes it all so self-perpetuating. With all this rhetoric about martyrdom and jihad. Religion makes people do crazy things in the hope of being allowed into paradise. Take away that kind of delusional thinking and you'd think the moderates would have a much better chance of being heard.
Click to expand...

Not to mention talking trees and shrubs. I mean, who the feck comes up with this let alone believes it?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I also think a similar thing can be said regarding the formation of Israel. Yes, it was largely a case of mass movement of people driving many locals from the land. But people overlook the fact that this is how the vast majority of nations have been formed across history. It's not specific to Israel, that is just a more recent example.
Click to expand...
People don't overlook the formation of nations being unjust, they just take the pragmatic view that it's not practically reversible as a lot of proponents of a two-state solution believe about Israel.
 
Fearless said:
See what you've just done - devalued Arab life in one foul swoop purely on the basis thats it's a different beast altogether, justifying your swerve by Israel's 'allegedly civilised' standards.
Click to expand...

I'm not devaluing anyone's lives. I regard all human beings as equal.

Its not difficult to see that the conflict in Syria is a different one altogether to what's happening in Israel.
 
Gannicus said:
Hamas was founded on the principle that Israel has no right to exist and must be destroyed. Its actions are consistent with it's founding principle.

Does anyone here seriously expect Hamas to sit down with Israel to work things out?
Click to expand...

Except that they repudiated that principle years ago... Do catch up, please. What Hamas is doing right now is legitimate resistance by any and all means necessary, as per International Law.
 
Kaos said:
Regarding what's happening in Iraq and Syria - a lot of the atrocities that can be accredited to Western intervention, so its understandable that folk are apprehensive about asking for intervention there. Israel on the other hand you can argue are being enabled by Western powers due to the diplomatic immunity they enjoy from the US's unconditional veto amongst the various weapon deals it enjoys.

I can understand the "never again" mentality harboured by the international Jewry, nonetheless there shouldn't be any reason why their existence will again come under threat. Something like the holocaust will never be allowed to happen in this day and age despite some crazy factions expressing intent to wipe them from the face of the earth. Then there's the comfort of them having one of the strongest militaries on the planet, an arsenal of nuclear weapons and the worlds leading superpower as their closest ally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some good points there.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Dunno if it's my naturally contrary nature but, despite my revulsion at what is happening, I do find myself digging for reasonable opposing opinions to the overwhelming consensus in here (and all over my fecking facebook feed)

I posted one such piece a good few pages back. Here's another one, which does (IMHO) make some fairly compelling points in defence of Israel. The fact that the author concludes by unequivocally condemning Israel for many of it's actions makes the arguments within all the more plausible.

It's the first time I've really got the "but look what happened in Syria" argument. It's not about moral relativity, so much as highlighting the intense scrutiny and criticism that Israel undergoes compared to other nations in which war crimes also occur. A scrutiny that has to be fuelled by an underlying mood of anti-semitism. I can't come up with any other reasonable explanation. Again, this doesn't justify or explain the massacre of civilians but it does higlight the justifiable sense of persecution and paranoia that is partly responsible for the regreattable decisions made by the Israel leaders.
Click to expand...
I've got to agree with you on that, the narrative of Jews killing Muslims is the one that's pushed, when it's actually Israel attacking Gaza (or retaliating). The hypocrisy of certain media outlets and some posters is that they run with the Jews are the aggressors against innocent Muslims narrative, yet they aren't quite so forthcoming about covering or even condemning atrocities committed by Muslims towards none muslims all over the world.
 
Kaos said:
I can understand the "never again" mentality harboured by the international Jewry, nonetheless there shouldn't be any reason why their existence will again come under threat. Something like the holocaust will never be allowed to happen in this day and age despite some crazy factions expressing intent to wipe them from the face of the earth. Then there's the comfort of them having one of the strongest militaries on the planet, an arsenal of nuclear weapons and the worlds leading superpower as their closest ally.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure of that. If Hamas or similar had access to a nuclear weapon and the means of using it, I think it would only be a matter of time before there was a mushroom cloud over Israel. Israel has had to fend off a number of wars in its short history.
 
Devil_forever said:
I've got to agree with you on that, the narrative of Jews killing Muslims is the one that's pushed, when it's actually Israel attacking Gaza (or retaliating). The hypocrisy of certain media outlets and some posters is that they run with the Jews are the aggressors against innocent Muslims narrative, yet they aren't quite so forthcoming about covering or even condemning atrocities committed by Muslims towards none muslims all over the world.
Click to expand...

Did you see the post 9-11 backlash? I wouldn't say the Muslims got a free ride on that one. Ditto various other terrorist attacks in Europe.

The condemnation Israel face doesn't just come from 'Muslims' either.
 
Devil_forever said:
I've got to agree with you on that, the narrative of Jews killing Muslims is the one that's pushed, when it's actually Israel attacking Gaza (or retaliating). The hypocrisy of certain media outlets and some posters is that they run with the Jews are the aggressors against innocent Muslims narrative, yet they aren't quite so forthcoming about covering or even condemning atrocities committed by Muslims towards none muslims all over the world.
Click to expand...

Plenty are the opposite though.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I also think a similar thing can be said regarding the formation of Israel. Yes, it was largely a case of mass movement of people driving many locals from the land. But people overlook the fact that this is how the vast majority of nations have been formed across history. It's not specific to Israel, that is just a more recent example.
Click to expand...


We aren't giving manhattan back to the Lenape. The difference is that Israel's unjust taking of land is ongoing. There are people alive today who were born in homes that were bulldozed or repossessed. I think a permanent peace solution will have to accept a lot of the settlements that have cropped up in recent years but the fact that they are ongoing while the world has a level of knowledge they didn't have about America or Poland is particularly galling.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I wouldn't be so sure of that. If Hamas or similar had access to a nuclear weapon and the means of using it, I think it would only be a matter of time before there was a mushroom cloud over Israel. Israel has had to fend off a number of wars in its short history.
Click to expand...

Where are Hamas going to get a nuclear weapon from?

Even if they had the means of getting one why would they launch it at Israel and end up taking the Palestinians down with them?
 
Gannicus said:
It's fair game to be critical of Israel prior to the emergence of Hamas. There are virtually no states on the planet which have not committed atrocities, including the UK and the USA. So while it's true that Israel has blood on its hands prior to Hamas, it's also true that Israel has been under constant threat of destruction since its founding after the Second World War.

But here we are today each of us on the caf desperately wishes there were a way to arrive at a genuine reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. There ARE forces for reconciliation among the Palestinians but as long as Hamas has the control over the Palestinians that it has, at least in Gaza, it's pretty clear that no reconciliation is possible.

It's not a matter of "bashing" Hamas any more that it was a matter of matter of "bashing" segregationists in the American South in the 1960s who defended Jim Crow laws. Both must be overcome. If there is a way to get Hamas to sit down and work out a genuine reconciliation with Israeli people, everyone here would be all for that. If not, Hamas must be dealt with in some other manner, unless what you're suggesting is that Israel has to go, if that's your position, fine. But if you agree that Israel has a right exist then you have to acknowledge that Hamas as currently constituted us the major obstacle to a genuine reconciliation.
Click to expand...

That is not my point. My point is that Israel's actions cannot be justified on merit. They are merely qualified with comparison to worse transgressors and mitigated by Hamas.

It's like talking to my children. "I don't care if she hit you first, dont hit your sister with a sledge hammer, ever!".

Hamas have been condemned for their actions. Outright and regardless of Israels behaviour for decades. That's the way it should be if there is any hope of progress. What's wrong is wrong. But apologists for the killing of children in their beds just seems insane to me. What's wrong is wrong. There is a global feeling that killing children is never the right thing to do, thankfully, but it's not the way in this thread. I can't get my head around it. People are actually excusing killing children. Nothing justifies that in my mind. And as for the value of one life over another, while I hope it's not my child next, as we all do. I'm don't think I could pull a trigger that kill's someone else's child to save mine.

As for Hamas, imagine how little hope you would have to have to put your faith in them? I really feel with even granting the Palestinians the human rights they deserve Hamas would have trouble garnering support for conflict.
 
Kaos said:
Where are Hamas going to get a nuclear weapon from?

Even if they had the means of getting one why would they launch it at Israel and end up taking the Palestinians down with them?
Click to expand...

It's more likely they would go for a dirty bomb type of nuclear device.
 
Kaos said:
Where are Hamas going to get a nuclear weapon from?

Even if they had the means of getting one why would they launch it at Israel and end up taking the Palestinians down with them?
Click to expand...
The most likely means of nuclear proliferation currently is from instability in Pakistan or North Korea. Who knows where in the future

Why would they risk Palestinian lives? The cult of martyrdom.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
The most likely means of nuclear proliferation currently is from instability in Pakistan or North Korea. Who knows where in the future

Why would they risk Palestinian lives? The cult of martyrdom.
Click to expand...

How would Pakistan/North Korea sneak a bomb into Gaza?

Assuming they're happy to take out a few thousand Palestinians with them, what becomes of the land they wish to return to? They would have made it practically unlivable for themselves. They'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Not to mention the Palestinians would lose all international sympathy if anything like that were to happen.
 
The does look that the view is changing(slowly)a bit in the UK in the way the news is being reported and people are talking about the actions of Israel which hasn't always been the case.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Undoubtedly anti-semitism is one of the primary reasons that the Israel-Palestine situation gets more coverage than other conflicts, but there are also other reasons, such as the history going back thousands of years, the narrative of the Jews managing to turn around their fate following the holocaust and the fact that Israel feels more 'western' than other countries in the region. But anti-semitism is still definitely at play underneath.

A similar thing can be said when people argue that it is wrong and incompatible with democratic principles for Israel to be defined as a Jewish state. I would agree that states defined on ethnic/religious grounds are not sustainable in the long term, but there are dozens of them around the world (Christian, Muslim and one Jewish state). Talking as if Israel is the only hypocritical democracy in this sense is misleading.

I also think a similar thing can be said regarding the formation of Israel. Yes, it was largely a case of mass movement of people driving many locals from the land. But people overlook the fact that this is how the vast majority of nations have been formed across history. It's not specific to Israel, that is just a more recent example.

None of this makes Israeli policy more justifiable, but I think you are right that the high relative amount of coverage this one country and conflict generates is probably due in part to antisemitism, or at least the fact that the Jews being in a position of power is still quite a novel thing historically speaking. There's probably an element of the dog bites man / man bites dog newsworthy test at play.
Click to expand...

People are more openly scornful of Scientology than older religions because it's newer, and it's machinations less vague and interpretational. How older nations are formed isn't dismissed, just not in enough of a flux to feel it's worth doing anything about.

Anti-semitism is such a neat, all purpose handwave. It's certainly at play in some places (a lot of the arab world, and even France seems to have experienced a sharp rise of late) but most of the western, Guardian reading, facebook sharing phenomena is far more likely to be because of the "western" angle. The same groups were behind a similar, larger condemnation of the Iraq war. It's in proportion to how much actual impact "we" (Westerners) think we can have. We (possibly naively) view Israel as close enough to us to have some tiny sway. To get through to them. We have no such feeling with Syria. Israel is connected to the West, and the US in particular, in a way no other place in the region is.
 
Last edited:
MikeUpNorth said:
I wouldn't be so sure of that. If Hamas or similar had access to a nuclear weapon and the means of using it, I think it would only be a matter of time before there was a mushroom cloud over Israel. Israel has had to fend off a number of wars in its short history.
Click to expand...
Me neither, in 50/100 years time you could see a nuclear superpower Iran with the US less interventionist in the ME. These kind of scenarios would, you'd have thought, have encouraged Israel to negotiate an equitable two-state solution from a position of strength.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
It's not specific to Israel, that is just a more recent example.
Click to expand...

I think this has a lot to do with everything we're seeing. Nothing Israel are doing is really markedly different than what many other nations have been doing for hundreds of years. There difference is we feel, rightfully, that it isn't really acceptable any more and that we should, as a species, know better now.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Undoubtedly anti-semitism is one of the primary reasons that the Israel-Palestine situation gets more coverage than other conflicts, but there are also other reasons, such as the history going back thousands of years, the narrative of the Jews managing to turn around their fate following the holocaust and the fact that Israel feels more 'western' than other countries in the region. But anti-semitism is still definitely at play underneath.

A similar thing can be said when people argue that it is wrong and incompatible with democratic principles for Israel to be defined as a Jewish state. I would agree that states defined on ethnic/religious grounds are not sustainable in the long term, but there are dozens of them around the world (Christian, Muslim and one Jewish state). Talking as if Israel is the only hypocritical democracy in this sense is misleading.

I also think a similar thing can be said regarding the formation of Israel. Yes, it was largely a case of mass movement of people driving many locals from the land. But people overlook the fact that this is how the vast majority of nations have been formed across history. It's not specific to Israel, that is just a more recent example.

None of this makes Israeli policy more justifiable, but I think you are right that the high relative amount of coverage this one country and conflict generates is probably due in part to antisemitism, or at least the fact that the Jews being in a position of power is still quite a novel thing historically speaking. There's probably an element of the dog bites man / man bites dog newsworthy test at play.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that except the anti semitism promoting coverage.. Here in Ireland the media have under reported Palestinian deaths in relation to Israeli deaths. Chomsky measured the column inches per death and backed this up. It is the one case I can think of where our insipid people blatantly don't give the people what they 'want'. There has always been a huge Palestinian Solidarity movement here that got no coverage in the media. Until now.
 
Ryan's Beard said:
I think this has a lot to do with everything we're seeing. Nothing Israel are doing is really markedly different than what many other nations have been doing for hundreds of years. There difference is we feel, rightfully, that it isn't really acceptable any more and that we should, as a species, know better now.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and the silence of our governents gives us an uneasy sense of being somehow complicit.
 
Kaos said:
How would they get the components for that? Their usual suppliers of arms Iran and Syria aren't exactly on good terms with Hamas anymore considering they chose to back the rebels in Syria.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are ways, but hopefully such a scenario is very far fetched.
 
I think there's clearly a lot of frustration as to how world leaders of other nations verbally approach this issue.

I was listening to David Cameron the other day where he offered condolences for the deaths of Israeli soldiers, yet described the deaths of Palestinian civilians as merely 'regrettable'.
 
peterstorey said:
Me neither, in 50/100 years time you could see a nuclear superpower Iran with the US less interventionist in the ME. These kind of scenarios would, you'd have thought, have encouraged Israel to negotiate an equitable two-state solution from a position of strength.
Click to expand...
I agree that the time for Israel to deal is now. They won't always be in such a strong position.
 
Dwazza Van Hernandez said:
I'm sure there are ways, but hopefully such a scenario is very far fetched.
Click to expand...

It would be very far-fetched. The Al-Nusra rebels in Syria would have better chance of obtaining such devastating weaponry considering the pourous nature of Syria's border at the moment, but considering that the West is happy to fund and arm them suggests that they don't consider such as a scenario as possible. I'd imagine the same for Gaza.
 
moses said:
I agree with all of that except the anti semitism promoting coverage.. Here in Ireland the media have under reported Palestinian deaths in relation to Israeli deaths. Chomsky measured the column inches per death and backed this up. It is the one case I can think of where our insipid people blatantly don't give the people what they 'want'. There has always been a huge Palestinian Solidarity movement here that got no coverage in the media. Until now.
Click to expand...

This battle has been going on for decades with markedly less coverage than it's getting at this moment. We're substantially more aware in the west of what's going on the middle east since 9/11 than we ever were before. Kids are even learning it in school now. You can add anti-semitism in there, but as reasons go for why it's suddenly getting so much coverage, the former adds up more than the latter. It's not like Syria and the ilk didn't get coverage, but there are (or certainly feel like there are ) less people of influence to appeal to with protests in the West.
 
Kaos said:
I think there's clearly a lot of frustration as to how world leaders of other nations verbally approach this issue.

I was listening to David Cameron the other day where he offered condolences for the deaths of Israeli soldiers, yet described the deaths of Palestinian civilians as merely 'regrettable'.
Click to expand...
Collateral innit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.