Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

[2cents]

Some thoughts on the Apartheid or Jim Crow analogies.

Discriminatory laws against Palestinians both within Israel and in the territories don't seem to me to be based on the principle of racial superiority, not that many Israelis don't hold such views, or that said laws don't often express themselves in racist ways. The very fact that Israel differentiates between Palestinians based on their legal status suggests that it is less a matter of principle relating to the nature of who the Palestinians are, and more to do with a range of political issues which stem from the project for the Jewish state, i.e. nationalism rather than outright racism.

In the case of Israeli Palestinians, the laws seem more based on the kind of ethnic nationalism that can be found in many places outside of, say, Western Europe - a quick look around the region would suggest that, as a minority, they fare a good bit better than other minority groups. They definitely suffer under some discriminatory laws, but none of them are particularly extreme, and they may, for example, run for seats in the Knesset, serve in the army, captain and manage football teams, etc. Definitely Israel could and should do much to improve matters (current President Rivlin is, believe it or not, quite vocal about these issues), but I don't see this happening while the conflict continues and Israeli Jews continue to feel that the existence of their state is at question.

In the case of Palestinians in the territories, the Apartheid or Jim Crow analogy is more obviously relevant, but still doesn't quite sit right with me - apart from the fact that the crazily explicit segregationist policies (e.g. separate drinking fountains) don't exist, the segregationist policies of the Wall, road-blocks, differing administrative areas, etc. were mostly put in to place during the 90s and especially during the second intifada. For the first twenty years of the occupation of the West Bank, things were a lot different, everyone had a lot more freedom to move around as far as I understand it. In any case as far as I know these laws don't apply to Israeli Palestinians, who are the only group, along with visiting tourists, who may freely travel throughout all areas. So again, the segregationist policies don't appear to me to be a matter of principle, more a response to the changing political climate and above all else, the fact that Israel will not offer these Palestinians Israeli citizenship. With that in mind, I'd say a better analogy would be the French in Algeria, with 48-67 Israel representing the metropole and facing the same dilemma - how to hold on to a land you want to keep which contains a massive majority of people you have no wish to rule. This is the dilemma which seems to me to drive much Israeli policy in the territories.

Even then, the analogy is not perfect, since the Algerians had no designs on mainland France, and indeed, had no historical connection to it at all. So from both Israeli and Palestinian perspectives, the analogy falls short right there, but for different reasons. Certainly for the Palestinians, the entire country would appear as Algeria - but what then would be the metropole?

(Edit): in fairness, I should add that, unlike in the case of the French in Algeria, the Jews have a deep historical and emotional connection with West Bank.

 

[Fearless]

Some thoughts on the Apartheid or Jim Crow analogies.

Discriminatory laws against Palestinians both within Israel and in the territories don't seem to me to be based on the principle of racial superiority, not that many Israelis don't hold such views, or that said laws don't often express themselves in racist ways. The very fact that Israel differentiates between Palestinians based on their legal status suggests that it is less a matter of principle relating to the nature of who the Palestinians are, and more to do with a range of political issues which stem from the project for the Jewish state, i.e. nationalism rather than outright racism.

In the case of Israeli Palestinians, the laws seem more based on the kind of ethnic nationalism that can be found in many places outside of, say, Western Europe - a quick look around the region would suggest that, as a minority, they fare a good bit better than other minority groups. They definitely suffer under some discriminatory laws, but none of them are particularly extreme, and they may, for example, run for seats in the Knesset, serve in the army, captain and manage football teams, etc. Definitely Israel could and should do much to improve matters (current President Rivlin is, believe it or not, quite vocal about these issues), but I don't see this happening while the conflict continues and Israeli Jews continue to feel that the existence of their state is at question.

In the case of Palestinians in the territories, the Apartheid or Jim Crow analogy is more obviously relevant, but still doesn't quite sit right with me - apart from the fact that the crazily explicit segregationist policies (e.g. separate drinking fountains) don't exist, the segregationist policies of the Wall, road-blocks, differing administrative areas, etc. were mostly put in to place during the 90s and especially during the second intifada. For the first twenty years of the occupation of the West Bank, things were a lot different, everyone had a lot more freedom to move around as far as I understand it. In any case as far as I know these laws don't apply to Israeli Palestinians, who are the only group, along with visiting tourists, who may freely travel throughout all areas. So again, the segregationist policies don't appear to me to be a matter of principle, more a response to the changing political climate and above all else, the fact that Israel will not offer these Palestinians Israeli citizenship. With that in mind, I'd say a better analogy would be the French in Algeria, with 48-67 Israel representing the metropole and facing the same dilemma - how to hold on to a land you want to keep which contains a massive majority of people you have no wish to rule. This is the dilemma which seems to me to drive much Israeli policy in the territories.

Even then, the analogy is not perfect, since the Algerians had no designs on mainland France, and indeed, had no historical connection to it at all. So from both Israeli and Palestinian perspectives, the analogy falls short right there, but for different reasons. Certainly for the Palestinians, the entire country would appear as Algeria - but what then would be the metropole?

(Edit): in fairness, I should add that, unlike in the case of the French in Algeria, the Jews have a deep historical and emotional connection with West Bank.

A well written post. Won't stop the hypocrites though.

 

[Shamwow]

Never said Google was Israeli rather the majority of Google search products including Google Suggest, Google Trends, Google Insights for Search and others are created, spearheaded and developed in Israel.

You did just say "Google proper", can't blame anyone for interpreting you in that way really. I still can't work out what Google has to do with the debate mind.

 

[LeChuck]

Father of the baby has also died from his injuries. Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajioon.

 

[LeChuck]

IOF to ban Muslims, allow settlers into Ibrahimi mosque on Thursday
3 hours ago National News Facebook

Related Articles

PNN/ Hebron/
Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Tuesday night announced will to close the Ibrahimi mosque (Haram) in the old city of Hebron, southern West Bank, for the Muslim worshipers under the pretext of “Jewish occasions.”Local sources said that IOF announced the mosque will be closed in the face of Muslims Thursday early morning, until the evening, but will be opened for Israeli Jewish settlers.

The mosque is regularly closed down by Israeli forces under the same pretext, but Jewish settlers are given full privilege to break into the mosque whenever desired.

IOF set checkpoints on the entrances of the mosque and worshipers are fully inspected on the gates.

IOF have often prevented the call for prayers (Adan) from the mosque, violating the religious freedom of Muslims.

The Israeli minister of army, Moshe Ya’alon on Tuesday morning broke into the mosque “to carry out Jewish prayers” in midst of tight security guardianship.

Palestinian security sources told PNN reporter that Ya’alon broke into the mosque heavily guarded, whereas the mosque gates were closed and worshipers were denied entry.

On t he other hand, the Israeli media claimed that Ya’alon’s visit was to “check up” on different areas in Hebron, where he will meet with generals and soldiers, adding that he will also “visit” other areas including the old city and the illegal settlements built in it.

=/

 

[2cents]

That's quite a misleading article. First, Jewish worshippers were also forced to leave during Ya'alon's visit, something which was headline news in Israeli media - http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Far-...7RDAwMEZDNzRBRDI1MUE2QTkyMDk5NTM2Qzc3MTRBQjU=

Second, the Mosque, or what Jews call the Cave of the Patriarchs, is on normal days divided 81% to 19% in favour of Muslim worshippers, the two sections being completely divided with separate entrances. However, under the terms of an agreement made in the late 90s which was related to the Oslo process, it was decided that the site should be closed completely to Muslims for 10 Jewish holy days a year, and closed completely to Jews for 10 Muslim holy days a year. Presumably, this upcoming closure is to do with that.

Third, the article refers to 'Jewish settlers', when in fact the site is open to all Jews.

So the article seems more an attempt to whip up Muslim religious fervour than to accurately report the news.

@Uzz what arrangements do you think would be fair to ensure free Jewish and Muslim worship in Hebron and Jerusalem?

 

[holyland red]

That's quite a misleading article.

How very admirable of you...

 

[LeChuck]

That's quite a misleading article. First, Jewish worshippers were also forced to leave during Ya'alon's visit, something which was headline news in Israeli media - http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Far-...7RDAwMEZDNzRBRDI1MUE2QTkyMDk5NTM2Qzc3MTRBQjU=

Actually, the youths were allowed to remain. Did you read the article? The 'main' news story of that article was the far rightest heckling Ya'alon and jumping on his car. Imagine if that was a non-settler doing that! But yes, the point is Jewish worshippers were allowed to remain in there.

Second, the Mosque, or what Jews call the Cave of the Patriarchs, is on normal days divided 81% to 19% in favour of Muslim worshippers, the two sections being completely divided with separate entrances. However, under the terms of an agreement made in the late 90s which was related to the Oslo process, it was decided that the site should be closed completely to Muslims for 10 Jewish holy days a year, and closed completely to Jews for 10 Muslim holy days a year. Presumably, this upcoming closure is to do with that.

The mosque is under control of waqf, as it is maintained and respected under such stewardship. The Muslims have always taken pride in the preservation of important artefacts, and this mosque is one of them. And yes, considering that almost 300,000+ people might pass through the walls on Jewish/Muslim festivals, I think closure to one group for the other is a matter of crowd safety. The main point is that this mosque is under Palestinian control. Muslims are being barred from practising their faith as Ya'alon wants to visit, completely undermining the agreement, and thereby exacerbating the situation. You want to talk about Oslo accords, and Wye River memorandums, have Likud upheld any part of their side from its inception? If we look at the continued building of settlements, illegal occupation, and checkpoints, who has broken the permutations of the Oslo accord? Some of it specifically to Hebron/WB? To the bolded - where's the evidence? I'm not an expert on Judaism, (even though I think I know a little bit), but to my knowledge there are no significant Jewish festivals coming up? @Fearless are there?

Third, the article refers to 'Jewish settlers', when in fact the site is open to all Jews.

So the article seems more an attempt to whip up Muslim religious fervour than to accurately report the news.

No, the article highlights injustices.

@Uzz what arrangements do you think would be fair to ensure free Jewish and Muslim worship in Hebron and Jerusalem?

We've been through this. Land encroachment has to stop. The land needs to be redistributed. The Zionist gov't needs to be removed. I posted about it pages ago. I have no problem with Jewish people, and for Jewish people practicing their religion freely. My own personal thoughts on how it should be would be similar to how it was under Ottoman stewardship. The Jewish and Islamic faiths share a lot of common ground and I would never want to deny a Jew the right to visit a holy site. In the same vein, Muslims shouldn't be barred from visiting these same places, and what happens is many of them are harassed or barred.

 

[LeChuck]

A recent UNRWA study shows the infant mortality rate in Gaza has risen for the first time in five decades. Health Director says the blockade may be contributing to the trend.

Every five years UNRWA conducts a survey of infant mortality across the region, and the 2013 results were released this week.

The number of babies dying before the age of one has consistently gone down over the last decades in Gaza, from 127 per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 20.2 in 2008. At the last count, in 2013, it had risen to 22.4 per 1,000 live births.

The rate of neonatal mortality, which is the number of babies that die before four weeks old, has also gone up significantly in Gaza, from 12 per 1,000 live births in 2008 to 20.3 in 2013.

“Infant mortality is one of the best indicators for the health of the community,” said Dr. Akihiro Seita, Director of UNRWA’s health program. “It reflects on the mother and child’s health and in the U.N. Millennium Development Goals it is one of the key indicators.”

“The rate”, Dr. Seita said, “had declined quite smoothly over the last decades across the region, including Gaza. So when the 2013 results from Gaza were first uncovered, UNRWA was alarmed by the apparent increase. So we worked with external independent research groups to examine the data, to ensure the increase could be confirmed. That is why it took us so long to release these latest figures“.

Such an increase here is unprecedented in Dr. Seita’s experience working in the Middle East.

“Progress in combatting infant mortality doesn’t usually reverse. This seems to be the first time we have seen an increase like this,” Dr. Seita said. “The only other examples I can think of are in some African countries which experienced HIV epidemics”.

The UN Agency will carry out another region-wide survey of Palestinian refugees in 2018. However, UNRWA will conduct one this year in Gaza alone because of these latest figures.

“It is hard to know the exact causes behind the increase in both neonatal and infant mortality rates, but I fear it is part of a wider trend. We are very concerned about the impact of the long-term blockade on health facilities, supplies of medicines and bringing equipment in to Gaza,” Dr. Seita said.

The UNRWA report also highlights that the most recent survey was conducted before last year’s conflict in which over two thousand Palestinians were killed, the majority of whom were civilians, including over 550 children.

 

[2cents]

Actually, the youths were allowed to remain. Did you read the article? The 'main' news story of that article was the far rightest heckling Ya'alon and jumping on his car. Imagine if that was a non-settler doing that! But yes, the point is Jewish worshippers were allowed to remain in there.

Actually my problem is that it seems I misread the first article that you posted, which doesn't actually say that Muslims were ejected from the site, but that they were refused entry. According to this more sober article in Al-Ahram, "No one was allowed to enter or exit the southern West Bank mosque while Ya'alon was present for half an hour." (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCon...fence-Minister-enters-Ibrahimi-mosque-in.aspx)

So there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Muslims were treated differently to Jews during Ya'alon's visit. As for that visit itself, given what has happened in the West Bank in the last couple of weeks there are obvious reasons why the Defence Minister might feel a quick trip to such a sensitive place might be warranted. I can understand why Muslims might be upset at being denied entrance for half an hour given that they have no say over the matter, but it doesn't strike me as a massive injustice directed at them, just a minor consequence of the wider conflict.

No, the article highlights injustices.

From the article, anyone ignorant of the context would not learn that Jewish worshipers appear to have been equally affected by Ya'alon's visit, that Ya'alon's visit was not necessarily designed to provoke Muslims, and would never learn of any pre-existing agreements regarding Jewish access or even have a clue that Jews have a legitimate connection to the site at all.

The mosque is under control of waqf, as it is maintained and respected under such stewardship. The Muslims have always taken pride in the preservation of important artefacts, and this mosque is one of them. And yes, considering that almost 300,000+ people might pass through the walls on Jewish/Muslim festivals, I think closure to one group for the other is a matter of crowd safety. The main point is that this mosque is under Palestinian control.

You understand though the significance of the site in Judaism? Do you not find it strange that the self-proclaimed Jewish state, after having captured the two holiest sites in Judaism in 1967, continued to allow the waqf to administer the two sites? And continues to restrict Jewish access to 19% of one of them, and forbid Jewish worship altogether at the other? Imagine a Muslim army reconquering Mecca and Medina after a couple thousand years of non-Muslim rule in those places, and doing likewise.

Furthermore, when the director of the mosque is saying stuff like "The Ibrahimi mosque is an Islamic site and is unrelated to Judaism", it's not clear that the waqf is the most suitable institution to be administering the place.

To the bolded - where's the evidence? I'm not an expert on Judaism, (even though I think I know a little bit), but to my knowledge there are no significant Jewish festivals coming up? @Fearless are there?

I'm basing my assumption on this from the Al-Ahram article above - "According to Wafa Palestinian news agency, Israeli occupation forces decided to close the Ibrahimi mosque to Muslim worshippers while keeping it open for Israelis as of 10 pm on Wednesday until 10 pm on Thursday for a Jewish holiday." And on the fact that Palestinian and Arab media has form for protesting the site's closure to Muslims at these times.

We've been through this. Land encroachment has to stop. The land needs to be redistributed. The Zionist gov't needs to be removed. I posted about it pages ago. I have no problem with Jewish people, and for Jewish people practicing their religion freely. My own personal thoughts on how it should be would be similar to how it was under Ottoman stewardship. The Jewish and Islamic faiths share a lot of common ground and I would never want to deny a Jew the right to visit a holy site. In the same vein, Muslims shouldn't be barred from visiting these same places, and what happens is many of them are harassed or barred.

Yes I'm aware of your views on the wider conflict. I am interested specifically in how to fairly grant access to members of both faiths to these sites. Under the Ottomans and the Mamluks before them, Jews were forbidden from entering the Cave of the Patriarchs/Mosque of Ibrahim, and from the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif until the mid-19th century, and even then were forbidden to worship there, something that Israeli authorities continue to enforce today. So I'm not sure the Ottoman way of doing things is fair at all in today's context.

 

[Raoul]

Interesting.....

The Arab-Israeli courtship

Hints are growing of Israel and the Gulf kingdoms finding common ground, if only to oppose Iran and Islamic State. These initial ties should be the basis for a lasting peace.

http://news.yahoo.com/arab-israeli-courtship-202109095--politics.html

 

[LeChuck]

Actually my problem is that it seems I misread the first article that you posted, which doesn't actually say that Muslims were ejected from the site, but that they were refused entry. According to this more sober article in Al-Ahram, "No one was allowed to enter or exit the southern West Bank mosque while Ya'alon was present for half an hour." (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCon...fence-Minister-enters-Ibrahimi-mosque-in.aspx)

So there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Muslims were treated differently to Jews during Ya'alon's visit. As for that visit itself, given what has happened in the West Bank in the last couple of weeks there are obvious reasons why the Defence Minister might feel a quick trip to such a sensitive place might be warranted. I can understand why Muslims might be upset at being denied entrance for half an hour given that they have no say over the matter, but it doesn't strike me as a massive injustice directed at them, just a minor consequence of the wider conflict.

It still undermines the waqf's authority, and the fact is they had no idea about this.

From the article, anyone ignorant of the context would not learn that Jewish worshipers appear to have been equally affected by Ya'alon's visit, that Ya'alon's visit was not necessarily designed to provoke Muslims, and would never learn of any pre-existing agreements regarding Jewish access or even have a clue that Jews have a legitimate connection to the site at all.

You understand though the significance of the site in Judaism? Do you not find it strange that the self-proclaimed Jewish state, after having captured the two holiest sites in Judaism in 1967, continued to allow the waqf to administer the two sites? And continues to restrict Jewish access to 19% of one of them, and forbid Jewish worship altogether at the other? Imagine a Muslim army reconquering Mecca and Medina after a couple thousand years of non-Muslim rule in those places, and doing likewise.

Furthermore, when the director of the mosque is saying stuff like "The Ibrahimi mosque is an Islamic site and is unrelated to Judaism", it's not clear that the waqf is the most suitable institution to be administering the place.

Let's analyse this further. Do you know why the mosque was divided into two with two separate entrances? I know you do. It's because a Zionist scumbag walked into the mosque with a semiautomatic weapon, and killed 30 people, and injured another 120. The IDF then killed another 30 in the subsequent protests after. This same Zionist scumbag has been revered as a hero in wider circles. This is why the mosque was divided in the first place. Secondly, you full well know the demographics of Hebron, pre 1948, pre 1967 and post 1967, so it's just a moot point. Where would the Muslims in Hebron go to pray if it was split in any other way? How do you think the reaction would have been if they split it any other way that wasn't in favour of the Muslims after 50 of them were killed? Also, the fact that Hebron was divided in the way it was was specifically so they could keep Ibrahimi mosque in their section. Additionally, why are the shops shut still on Shuhada St? (There's some alliteration for you). These were all Palestinian living premises, and businesses and they've been closed for nigh on 20 years. Why? Because some coward went round with a gun? Can you think of any other scenario where this would happen? Secondly, what do you think would have happened if they tried to take control of those sites away from waqf? Do you really think the Muslim/Arab countries would have just accepted it? There would have been a huge reaction. It's known the only reason that the Zionists let them keep control was to maintain the peace. But it won't stop them from slowly taking away these privileges. It's happened before and it'll happen again. Their modus operandi is slowly taking things bit by bit. We're seeing in Jerusalem with al-Aqsa, recently. I posted in this thread about it not long ago. And furthermore, comparing Jerusalem to Makkah and Medina (in this context) is comparing apples with oranges. It's a logically inept argument. What is the Jewish connection to these places? The fact remains that Ibrahimi mosque, and Dome of the Rock were under Muslim stewardship for 1600 hundred years. They are revered Islamic sites. The sites have been preserved and upheld through all this time, which is a bloody long time. How many times was Jerusalem sacked and looted pre Islamic tenure? Shed loads. In fact, if it wasn't for the Barbers (or was it the Mamluks? I forget), defending these lands from the Mongols there'd be nothing left. It's widely known in which the respect of these sites are given.

And also a bit on Ibrahimi mosque - they've been systematically trying to ban the adhan at the mosque again and again. The adhan. A staple part of the prayer. "Nowadays, Israel controls Palestinians’ access to the Mosque, prevents many from praying there on a regular basis and frequently bans the call for prayer under the pretext of disturbing the settlers. The control is not only restricted to prayer at the Mosque, but also calls for prayers through speakers. In January 2015 alone, the call for prayer was banned 51 times.
The Hebron Awqaf Directorate said that the policy of banning Muslims’ call for prayer is aimed at tightening the noose on Palestinians and stopping them from praying in the Mosque, subsequently driven them away from their city." This just reinforces my point from before.

From the article it seems one Jewish worshiper was affected. One. The article you posted earlier is about one person. To say equally affected is a huge overstatement on your part, and I think you know it. To the imam - I presume he's talking specifically about the fiqh of revelation, and the place of Jewish (and Christians) in present day. Something I've avoided in this thread is bringing theology discussion into this situation (and I'm not going to start now). But I can see how saying that won't exactly calm tensions. Or maybe it's this "Head of Hebron Waqf, Ismail Abu Halawa, said that dozens of settlers attempted to attack Sheikh Motasim Sdr, while he was calling for the night prayers, when he heard the thud of settlers who were planning to attack him." In fact, it could be any of these things.

I'm basing my assumption on this from the Al-Ahram article above - "According to Wafa Palestinian news agency, Israeli occupation forces decided to close the Ibrahimi mosque to Muslim worshippers while keeping it open for Israelis as of 10 pm on Wednesday until 10 pm on Thursday for a Jewish holiday." And on the fact that Palestinian and Arab media has form for protesting the site's closure to Muslims at these times.

Yes I'm aware of your views on the wider conflict. I am interested specifically in how to fairly grant access to members of both faiths to these sites. Under the Ottomans and the Mamluks before them, Jews were forbidden from entering the Cave of the Patriarchs/Mosque of Ibrahim, and from the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif until the mid-19th century, and even then were forbidden to worship there, something that Israeli authorities continue to enforce today. So I'm not sure the Ottoman way of doing things is fair at all in today's context.

If it is a genuine Jewish holiday, then I have no problem with that. And I was referring to the Ottoman stewardship where Jewish people were allowed to pray (obviously). Again, I don't see why the Palestinian people need to pay for Europe's guilt.

 

[LeChuck]

Two days ago, on Sunday night at 3 AM, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have kidnapped fishermen Mohamed Ismail Sharafi, 34 years old, and Mohamed Saidi, 22 years old, in Gaza City waters.According to the testimony of the other fishermen that where working with them the night of the attack, around 10 boats, one of the two fishermen was injured by live ammunition before being kidnapped.

The aggression took place at 5 miles off shore and their boat was also taken to Ashdod.

Two weeks ago Ahmed Sharafi, Mohamed’s brother, was shot in his back with live ammunition while working with his father.

Since the end of the last Zionist massacre against Gaza there have been 1312 reported attacks against the fishermen.

Since then, 22 boats have been stolen; 26 fishermen have been injured; one fisherman, Tawfiq Abu Riela, has been assassinated; 28 boats have been disabled by bullet fire; 2 big fishing boats have been sunken by rocket fire, one in Deir El Balah at 300m from the coast and one in Gaza City at 5 miles; 51 fishermen have been kidnapped while working and 3 fishermen remain prisoners until now.

Those facts, among other practices of the occupation forces, have caused the quantity of fish caught to decrease from 1600 tons the year before the massacre to 1000 tons the year after. At the same time the number of fishermen who work in the Gaza Strip has decreased from 3000 to 1000 and the fishermen who keep working have seen how their monthly income decreased from 2000 ILS to the actual 100 ILS.

This last year, just in Beach Camp, 50 children of fishermen have left the school in order to work carrying flour sacks at the doors of UNRWA for 1 ILS each sack.

It’s becoming common that the fishermen families have to choose between their children and decide which ones will go to school and which ones will have to work in order to support the family.

In this moment there are 900 children of fishermen in Gaza City, and 1700 in all the Strip, that should start the academic year in 20 days and whose parents can’t afford to buy them the school materials.

 

[2cents]

Let's analyse this further. Do you know why the mosque was divided into two with two separate entrances? I know you do. It's because a Zionist scumbag walked into the mosque with a semiautomatic weapon, and killed 30 people, and injured another 120. The IDF then killed another 30 in the subsequent protests after. This same Zionist scumbag has been revered as a hero in wider circles.

Yes I'm fully aware of what happened, and like I hinted before, it's because of stuff like this that a visit by the Defence Minister may have been deemed a good idea considering what has happened recently.

Secondly, you full well know the demographics of Hebron, pre 1948, pre 1967 and post 1967, so it's just a moot point. Where would the Muslims in Hebron go to pray if it was split in any other way? How do you think the reaction would have been if they split it any other way that wasn't in favour of the Muslims after 50 of them were killed? Also, the fact that Hebron was divided in the way it was was specifically so they could keep Ibrahimi mosque in their section. Additionally, why are the shops shut still on Shuhada St? (There's some alliteration for you). These were all Palestinian living premises, and businesses and they've been closed for nigh on 20 years. Why? Because some coward went round with a gun? Can you think of any other scenario where this would happen? Secondly, what do you think would have happened if they tried to take control of those sites away from waqf? Do you really think the Muslim/Arab countries would have just accepted it? There would have been a huge reaction. It's known the only reason that the Zionists let them keep control was to maintain the peace. But it won't stop them from slowly taking away these privileges. It's happened before and it'll happen again. Their modus operandi is slowly taking things bit by bit. We're seeing in Jerusalem with al-Aqsa, recently. I posted in this thread about it not long ago.

If you want to get into the history, why omit what happened in Hebron in 1929?

In any case, I've been to Hebron a couple of times, and yes, I agree with you, it is one fecked up place. If you think I'm arguing in favour of the privileges the tiny and ridiculously fanatical Jewish community there have somehow managed to secure for themselves, then you're wrong. My point was that in terms of right to worship at the places considered holy by both faiths, the current status quo is more fair than at any recent time that Muslims have controlled these sites (although I agree the sporadic banning of the adhan is unjust), and that currently those Muslim figures who administer the sites completely deny any Jewish connection to them. That's why I'm asking what a better alternative would be? Perhaps after the 'Zionist government' is removed, the Muslims will only be too happy to open up the sites equally to members of both faiths, but you'll have a hard time convincing most Jews that will happen. Perhaps I'm wrong though, and you can find me plenty of examples of Muslim officials acknowledging the central importance of Jerusalem and Hebron to the Jewish faith, and calling for equal rights for Jews at the sites?

Regarding the bolded bit, I agree there would be a huge reaction due to the numbers of Muslims around the world. But that shouldn't necessarily determine the rights and wrongs of the situation. Consider this - because the Old City and East Jerusalem is so crowded and hilly, for many Arab youths living there the platform of the Haram al-Sharif is a place to go to play football. Now, do you know that this drives many religious Jews crazy, seeing their most holy site being, as they see it, desecrated in this way? Perhaps if there were 1.5 billion Jews in the world and close to 50 Jewish states at the UN then the threat of a huge reaction might force the waqf to prevent young Palestinians playing football there. Would that be fair? I don't know.

And furthermore, comparing Jerusalem to Makkah and Medina (in this context) is comparing apples with oranges. It's a logically inept argument. What is the Jewish connection to these places? The fact remains that Ibrahimi mosque, and Dome of the Rock were under Muslim stewardship for 1600 hundred years. They are revered Islamic sites. The sites have been preserved and upheld through all this time, which is a bloody long time. How many times was Jerusalem sacked and looted pre Islamic tenure? Shed loads. In fact, if it wasn't for the Barbers (or was it the Mamluks? I forget), defending these lands from the Mongols there'd be nothing left. It's widely known in which the respect of these sites are given.

Let me put it like this - imagine if tomorrow, non-Muslim armies conquered Mecca and turned the Masjid al-Haram into the city's rubbish dump. Then, several centuries later, a different non-Muslim army conquered Mecca, and built their own temple at the site, and a shrine to their prophet on the site where the Kaabah used to be. This latest non-Muslim army then governs the site for over a thousand years, the city having become of place of pilgrimage and religious significance for them, but upholds and continues restrictions on the rights of Muslims to worship there. That is essentially what the pre-1967 history of places like Jerusalem and Hebron looks like through Jewish eyes. Here's a photo I took outside the site, a sign giving the (admittedly propagandist) Jewish view:

Having said that, I know some secular Israelis who would like nothing more than to wash their hands of these places, but Israeli society is becoming more religious, and given that a self-proclaimed Jewish state now controls the sites, it's only natural that there is an increase in pressure on the government to increase control and access for Jews. Personally I think it would be wiser for the government to resist this pressure (and you can be sure there are many in the government who would agree), but given the unique centrality of these places in Judaism, it's only going to be harder in the foreseeable future.

From the article it seems one Jewish worshiper was affected. One. The article you posted earlier is about one person. To say equally affected is a huge overstatement on your part, and I think you know it.

All the articles I've read on this have basically reported the same - that during Ya'alon's short visit, nobody was allowed to enter or leave the site - obviously with the exception of this one Jewish guy who raised a stink. So yes, it would appear that both Muslims and Jews were equally affected by the visit.

And I was referring to the Ottoman stewardship where Jewish people were allowed to pray (obviously).

Except that, as I've pointed out, under the Ottomans Jews were forbidden from entering the Cave of the Patriarchs altogether, and the Temple Mount until the mid-1800's, and are still forbidden from praying on the latter by the authorities of the Jewish state no less!

So without vague references to the Ottomans, what exactly do you think would be a fair arrangement at the Cave of the Patriarchs/Mosque of Ibrahim and the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif?

(By the way, I'm not offering any solutions myself, what to do about places like this or Ayodhya/Cordoba/Istanbul, etc. is a question that has me stumped.)

 

[Cheesy]

In a rather bizarre turn of events...

http://news.sky.com/story/1538337/hamas-claims-captured-dolphin-is-israeli-spy

 

[holyland red]

In a rather bizarre turn of events...

http://news.sky.com/story/1538337/hamas-claims-captured-dolphin-is-israeli-spy

So far we've had spying vultures in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, a spying bee-eater in Turkey and a great white shark trained to undermine Egypt's economy by preying on Sinai tourists.

Time to get those lazy amphibians and reptiles do some work too. Should be an opening for Mossad herpetologist anytime soon.

 

[barros]

So far we've had spying vultures in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, a spying bee-eater in Turkey and a great white shark trained to undermine Egypt's economy by preying on Sinai tourists.

Time to get those lazy amphibians and reptiles do some work too. Should be an opening for Mossad herpetologist anytime soon.

Are you guys involved with the shark attacks in US?

 

[Raoul]

'Positive contacts' with Israel on Gaza truce: Hamas head

http://news.yahoo.com/positive-contacts-israel-gaza-truce-hamas-head-185007190.html

 

[LeChuck]

Unidentified attackers on Monday morning have torched a house in Duma village near Nablus, no injuries were reported.

The governor of Nablus, Maj. Gen. Akram Rajoub told PNN that the investigation in the case is still open, adding that there are no clues on who initiated the attack.

Rajoub added that as soon as the investigation is over, the attackers will be announced.

The arson is similar to the 31 July attack, when extremist Israeli settlers broke into the village of Duma and firebombed a house.

n the attack, 18-month-old toddler, Ali, and his father, Saad Dawabsheh were burned to death, while the mother and brother are still in critical conditions.

 

[LeChuck]

US State Department spokesman John Kirby on Tuesday expressed concern over the treatment of Palestinian-Americans traveling to Israel.

According to the US State Department's website, "many Palestinian nationals or dual nationals seeking to enter via Ben-Gurion have been sent back to the United States upon arrival."

"Others have been allowed to enter Israel but told they cannot depart Israel via Ben-Gurion without special permission, which is rarely granted," the website explains.

Israel views anyone in possession of a Palestinian Authority ID card as a Palestinian resident, regardless of whether they are also a US citizen. Those eligible for the ID card include anyone with a parent or grandparent who lived in the West Bank or Gaza. Israeli law dictates that all Palestinian Authority citizens enter the country through the Allenby Bridge on the Jordanian border.

"The US government seeks equal treatment and freedom to travel for all US citizens regardless of national origin or ethnicity," Kirby announced.

"Specifically, the US government remains concerned at the unequal treatment that Palestinian-Americans and other Arab-Americans receive at Israel's borders and checkpoints."

 

[LeChuck]

The Israeli Minister of Israeli army, Moshe Ya’alon on Friday night said that Israel refused most of Hamas’s asks for a long-term truce in the Gaza Strip.

Ya’alon added that the current reality is viable, and the IOF “would not stand idly in front of the tunnels Hamas continued build.”

Ya’alon told the Israeli Tenth Channel last night that there was a cease-fire since last last year, but Ya’alon thought it Served different aspects for Hamas, adding that the terms “were not acceptable.”

Head of the political bureau of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal said yesterday that the truce talks revolved around the problems that The Gaza Strip suffered of, which were reconstruction, lifting the blockade and opening the crossings, the problem of the fifty thousand employees, the port and the airport, and finally the infrastructure of water, electricity and roads.

Meshaal added that the talks did not level any agreement until the moment.

War monger.

 

[lem8sh]

Strong yet highly valid words here from the US representative particularly with regards to the "Leahy Law":

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news...stinian-children-slammed-by-us-representative

 

[LeChuck]

Gaza: 1,000 children sustained permanent disabilities of last year’s aggression



PNN exclusive: Gaza hospitals on the edge of collapse, with thousands of lives
2 days ago


Middle East Monitor/
More than 1,000 Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip sustained permanent disabilities during last year’s 51-day Israeli military onslaught, according to Defense for Children International (DCI), an NGO devoted to children’s rights.

In a report entitled “Operation Protective Edge: A war waged on Gaza’s Children”, released on Tuesday, DCI’s Palestine unit said last year’s Israeli offensive had led to the injury of more than 11,000 Palestinians, including 1,000 permanently disabled by the violence.

The children’s rights organization also noted that, a full year after the Israeli assault, thousands of victims — including a number of children — continued to suffer from their injuries and the attendant psychological trauma.

The Gaza Strip, with some 1.9 million inhabitants, is known to be the world’s most densely populated area.

On July 7, 2014, Israel launched a major offensive against the coastal territory — dubbed “Operation Protective Edge” — which finally ended on August 26.

Over 51 days of fierce bombardment by air, land and sea, more than 2,147 Palestinians were killed, including 578 children, 489 women and 102 elderly persons.

Another 11,000 Palestinians were injured during the onslaught, 3,303 of whom were children, according to a report by the Palestinian Health Ministry.

 

[LeChuck]

Gaza Could Become 'Uninhabitable' by 2020, UN Report Warns
Eight years of economic blockade and three wars with Israel in six years accelerated de-development of Gaza Strip, UN Conference on Trade and Development report says.

A new United Nations report says Gaza could be "uninhabitable" in less than five years if current economic trends continue.
The report released Tuesday by the UN Conference on Trade and Development points to the eight years of economic blockade of Gaza as well as the three wars between Israel and the Palestinians there over the past six years.
Last year's war displaced half a million people and left parts of Gaza destroyed.

The war "has effectively eliminated what was left of the middle class, sending almost all of the population into destitution and dependence on international humanitarian aid," the new report says.
Gaza's GDP dropped 15 percent last year, and unemployment reached a record high of 44 percent. Seventy-two percent of households are food insecure.
The wars have shattered Gaza's ability to export and produce for the domestic market and left no time for reconstruction, the report says. It notes that Gaza's "de-development," or development in reverse, has been accelerated.

Israel and Egypt have maintained a blockade of Gaza since the Islamic militant group Hamas seized control of the territory in 2007.
The report comes as Egyptian military bulldozers press ahead with a project that effectively would fill Egypt's border with the Gaza Strip with water and flood the last remaining cross-border underground smuggling tunnels, which have brought both commercial items and weapons into Gaza.
The report calls the economic prospects for 2015 for the Palestinian territories "bleak" because of the unstable political situation, reduced aid and the slow pace of reconstruction.

 

[Fearless]

Meet the Hamas billionaires...

http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-the-phenomenal-wealth-of-hamas-leaders-1000957953

 

[Sassy Colin]

This thread seems to have degenerated into a stream of point scoring posts. Your lot are really mean, yes, well your lot are really mean too.

Can we decide what this thread is supposed to be about and get it back on track?

@Raoul ?

 

[LeChuck]

I like to document the injustices perpetrated by the Zionist government. Then discuss them if they need to be discussed. What's the issue?

 

[jeff_goldblum]

The problem with this thread is that we have two viewpoints and two sets of people who have largely made up their minds, and one which will happily resort to using religious scripture as proof to back up its arguments. Occasionally someone like @2cents will make an interesting, well-informed post which both sides will partially agree with and partially disagree with, but largely it's something of a stalemate. When you're in that situation it's difficult to have a discussion, as I've found out myself when debating some posters in here.

I've come in before to argue the basic point of 'Israel is doing bad things and should stop doing so, as should those Arabs who attack Israel', at which point someone on the pro-Israel side will fire back with 'Well the Arabs do bad things too'. They'll generally give no thought to the difference in scale and political backing of the actions involved, or the context in which they occurred, or the fact that I've already addressed that point. The 'Well look at the Arabs!!' argument is usually very quickly followed by 'Why are you picking on Israel when loads of countries do bad things?', to which the answer is 'in most of those countries our governments didn't give and aren't currently giving them ludicrous amounts of military aid and political support'. If you stand your ground long enough you might even hear the classic - 'Well Israel was given to the Jewish people by God so Arabs shouldn't be there at all' argument. When that's the level of debate you're faced with, it's unsurprising that the thread largely boils down to people posting new developments. You can't argue with a brick wall but you can stick newspapers on it.

 

[Jippy]

This thread seems to have degenerated into a stream of point scoring posts. Your lot are really mean, yes, well your lot are really mean too.

Can we decide what this thread is supposed to be about and get it back on track?

@Raoul ?

Opinion-wise, it's the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. That probably describes half the threads in the CE tbf.

 

[holyland red]

We used to have debates here on borders, what wuold be fair territorial allocations as part of a peace agreement and the future of Jerusalem. Those were happy days when many experts aregued that 96% of the territory is not fair enough, Temple Mount is ours or theirs, and that Israel wants to steal all the water and the fertile land in the WB.

We've since moved on as we now realize that the dispute is over the very existence of the state of Israel. Therefore, at this point in time there is nothing to debate. It exists, and therefore any attempts to forcefully undermine it will be met with a harsh response. What is there to debate? Why would anyone care if those who want to ISIS Israelis think that they are evil?

 

[Q80]

More meddling from the fast lane.

 

[Revan]

We used to have debates here on borders, what wuold be fair territorial allocations as part of a peace agreement and the future of Jerusalem. Those were happy days when many experts aregued that 96% of the territory is not fair enough, Temple Mount is ours or theirs, and that Israel wants to steal all the water and the fertile land in the WB.

We've since moved on as we now realize that the dispute is over the very existence of the state of Israel. Therefore, at this point in time there is nothing to debate. It exists, and therefore any attempts to forcefully undermine it will be met with a harsh response. What is there to debate? Why would anyone care if those who want to ISIS Israelis think that they are evil?

I don't think that there have been more than a couple of posters (one of them banned, right) who did question the right of the existence of the state of Israel. Not that it morally has existential rights, but it is also a fact, and as you said, there wouldn't be a point in discussing that.

However, that doesn't mean that there is nothing to discuss. The crimes from both sides for example.

 

[Fearless]

The problem with this thread is that we have two viewpoints and two sets of people who have largely made up their minds, and one which will happily resort to using religious scripture as proof to back up its arguments. Occasionally someone like @2cents will make an interesting, well-informed post which both sides will partially agree with and partially disagree with, but largely it's something of a stalemate. When you're in that situation it's difficult to have a discussion, as I've found out myself when debating some posters in here.

I've come in before to argue the basic point of 'Israel is doing bad things and should stop doing so, as should those Arabs who attack Israel', at which point someone on the pro-Israel side will fire back with 'Well the Arabs do bad things too'. They'll generally give no thought to the difference in scale and political backing of the actions involved, or the context in which they occurred, or the fact that I've already addressed that point. The 'Well look at the Arabs!!' argument is usually very quickly followed by 'Why are you picking on Israel when loads of countries do bad things?', to which the answer is 'in most of those countries our governments didn't give and aren't currently giving them ludicrous amounts of military aid and political support'. If you stand your ground long enough you might even hear the classic - 'Well Israel was given to the Jewish people by God so Arabs shouldn't be there at all' argument. When that's the level of debate you're faced with, it's unsurprising that the thread largely boils down to people posting new developments. You can't argue with a brick wall but you can stick newspapers on it.

This thread is very much a microcosm of the conflict itself.

The ultimate sticky.

 

[holyland red]

I don't think that there have been more than a couple of posters (one of them banned, right) who did question the right of the existence of the state of Israel. Not that it morally has existential rights, but it is also a fact, and as you said, there wouldn't be a point in discussing that.

However, that doesn't mean that there is nothing to discuss. The crimes from both sides for example.

As none of us (correct me if I'm wrong) is a legal expert then throwing buzzwords like "crime", "illegal" and so on is not going to help any discussion. I'm not even worried about posters who seek the distruction of a country because these could be easilly ignored while discussion continues among more sensible posters. What I was pointing at was that the conflict reovlves around the right of an already exisiting Jewish state to continue and exist in the ME. When Israel is attacked by those who openly call for its destruction there is really little to debate on Israel's response.

 

[Revan]

As none of us (correct me if I'm wrong) is a legal expert then throwing buzzwords like "crime", "illegal" and so on is not going to help any discussion. I'm not even worried about posters who seek the distruction of a country because these could be easilly ignored while discussion continues among more sensible posters. What I was pointing at was that the conflict reovlves around the right of an already exisiting Jewish state to continue and exist in the ME. When Israel is attacked by those who openly call for its destruction there is really little to debate on Israel's response.

At the very worst case, I think that there is at least some moral blame in killing women and children in "Israel's response". Obviously, I am not giving a solution and I am not sure that there exist a solution, but I also think that Israel isn't interested at all in a peaceful solution which will result in some Palestinian state.

Anyway, the thread is a vicious cycle like the conflict. And until Palestinians won't be leaded like religious fanatics like Hamas, and Israel won't be leaded by scumbags like Netanyahu, nothing won't change. And the entire conflict, will only make their position stronger.

 

[holyland red]

At the very worst case, I think that there is at least some moral blame in killing women and children in "Israel's response". Obviously, I am not giving a solution and I am not sure that there exist a solution, but I also think that Israel isn't interested at all in a peaceful solution which will result in some Palestinian state.

Anyway, the thread is a vicious cycle like the conflict. And until Palestinians won't be leaded like religious fanatics like Hamas, and Israel won't be leaded by scumbags like Netanyahu, nothing won't change. And the entire conflict, will only make their position stronger.

to be perfectly honest with you, I don't know what "Israel wants" but i know what many Israelis want. Most Israelis support a two-state solution. An even larger majority want our army to put an end to rocket fire that drops on our heads occasionally.

Drawing moral equivalence between Hamas and Netanyahu is lazy. As long as Israel's legitimacy is questioned and undermined it doesn't really matter who's PM.

 

[2cents]

When that's the level of debate you're faced with, it's unsurprising that the thread largely boils down to people posting new developments.

Works both ways though. Haven't seen them in a while (the posters responsible seem to have lost interest in/been banned from this thread), but it used to be common to come across top-class witticisms such as 'IsraHell' and 'ZioNazi' in this thread. I also saw the hilarious 'Nuttyahoo' recently (which surely ranks up there with 'Tony BLiar') think it was in another thread though.

 

[LeChuck]

I've come in before to argue the basic point of 'Israel is doing bad things and should stop doing so, as should those Arabs who attack Israel', at which point someone on the pro-Israel side will fire back with 'Well the Arabs do bad things too'. They'll generally give no thought to the difference in scale and political backing of the actions involved, or the context in which they occurred, or the fact that I've already addressed that point. The 'Well look at the Arabs!!' argument is usually very quickly followed by 'Why are you picking on Israel when loads of countries do bad things?', to which the answer is 'in most of those countries our governments didn't give and aren't currently giving them ludicrous amounts of military aid and political support'. If you stand your ground long enough you might even hear the classic - 'Well Israel was given to the Jewish people by God so Arabs shouldn't be there at all' argument. When that's the level of debate you're faced with, it's unsurprising that the thread largely boils down to people posting new developments. You can't argue with a brick wall but you can stick newspapers on it.

You missed out the bit where if you criticise the Zionist regime, you are by default an anti-semite.

 

[Revan]

to be perfectly honest with you, I don't know what "Israel wants" but i know what many Israelis want. Most Israelis support a two-state solution. An even larger majority want our army to put an end to rocket fire that drops on our heads occasionally.

Drawing moral equivalence between Hamas and Netanyahu is lazy. As long as Israel's legitimacy is questioned and undermined it doesn't really matter who's PM.

I am not drawing moral equivalence, just saying that both sides need different politics, and with the current leadership there is no way that is going to happen.

Obviously a tw-country solution is the only solution which can work in long term. Israel should stop the new settlements (and remove those which have been created in the last 10 years or so), Hamas or whoever leads Palestinians should stop throwing rockets and Arab states should recognize Israel.

Not going to happen, obviously!

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Works both ways though. Haven't seen them in a while (the posters responsible seem to have lost interest in/been banned from this thread), but it used to be common to come across top-class witticisms such as 'IsraHell' and 'ZioNazi' in this thread. I also saw the hilarious 'Nuttyahoo' recently (which surely ranks up there with 'Tony BLiar') think it was in another thread though.

Yeah I should emphasize that I'm just talking from my own experience, having only frequented the generals for a relatively short period of time. Certainly in my experience on the caf I've not seen attitudes from the anti-Israeli gov't side that reach the levels of brick-wall rhetoric I've seen in some pro-Israeli gov't posts, but that's not to say they don't exist and aren't prevalent elsewhere on the internet.