The government of Iraq has come out and suggested an oil ban towards the USA and Israel for their crimes and complicity.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I hope you have the same enthusiasm for Syria's woes.
You will notice that I purposely didn't patronise you because you know exactly why that is the case.
Haven't done it already? And every time you want?
Won't matter, Qatar and Saudi would just lower prices to compensate.
Ladies and Gentleman, I give you, Life.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking
Air raid sirens heard in Jerusalem, witnesses say. LIVE text http://bbc.in/QLXGeo Updates BBC's Middle East reporters
Jerusalem...Hamas not exactly trying to cool things down. Tel Aviv and now Jerusalem.
Air raid sirens heard in Jerusalem, witnesses say. LIVE text http://bbc.in/QLXGeo Updates BBC's Middle East reporters
Jerusalem...Hamas not exactly trying to cool things down. Tel Aviv and now Jerusalem.
Actually it does.
Pity the Arab states, who started each refugee festooned war , have left their Palestine brethren rotting in tents (or slaughtered by Kuwait/ Jordan etc), couldn't follow our example.
Like I said, Israeli Arabs (those who remained) have more rights than any other Arab anywhere (apart from Abu Qatarda).
Hamas aren't in the 'cooling things down' business.
Unfortunately you're right here, at-least in some part.
If either Israeli or Hamas would have been in 'cooling things down' business, things would have been better.
Which is all very well, except Israel refuses to give those Palestinian people the status of being "Israeli Arabs" whilst at the same time taking their land. You even claimed it was Israeli land in the first place! So why aren't the people on it Israelis?
I recall you referred to the bolded part as International Law a couple of hours ago.
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition Plan. The final vote was as follows:
In favour, (33 countries, 72% of voting):
Latin American and Caribbean (13 countries): Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
Western European and Others (12 countries): Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States
Eastern European (5 countries): Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union
African (2 countries): Liberia, South Africa
Asia-Pacific (1 country): PhilippinesAgainst, (13 countries, 28% of voting):
Asia-Pacific (9 countries): Afghanistan, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen
Western European and Others (2 countries): Greece, Turkey
African (1 country): Egypt
Latin American and Caribbean (1 country): Cuba
Abstentions, (10 countries):
Latin American and Caribbean (6 countries): Argentina, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico
Asia-Pacific (1 country): Republic of China
African (1 country): Ethiopia
Western European and Others (1 country): United Kingdom
Eastern European (1 country): Yugoslavia
Absent, (1 country):
Asia-Pacific (1 country): Thailand
I take this opprtunity to thank the rich white men representing the countries in bold.
I reckon there will be movement on the ground if Tel Aviv or Jerusalem are hit.
Hamas are banking on it.
very succinct VDO with ideas on why Israel has decided to engage in war right now
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/2012/nov/15/why-israel-gaza-video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/2012/nov/15/why-israel-gaza-video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/16/gaza-attacks-palestine-israel-branding-war
Why Palestine must match Israel in the branding war
Israel's use of Twitter as a PR tool in the attacks on Gaza draws on a long history of branding that Palestinians have yet to match
Arwa Mahdawi
guardian.co.uk
Here we go again. Israel and Gaza are embattled, and innocent civilians are dying. And as the "collateral damage" mounts, so too does the jargon-ridden justification. There is, however, something new amidst this deja vu, and that is the prominence of Twitter as a multimedia mouthpiece for said justifications. While Israel has always matched aggressive military action with assertive marketing, this is the first time it has quite so explicitly turned war into what is basically a social-media drive for "Brand Israel".
On Wednesday morning, the Israel Defense Forces made history by choosing to break the news of Operation Pillar of Defense via Twitter. Hamas's military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, promptly tweeted back. In the time since, the IDF has live-tweeted a blow-by-PR-vetted-blow of the campaign. There's also a Tumblr and a selection of infographics and action-packed assassination videos you're encouraged to share with friends. Somebody in the IDF also clearly knows what makes the internet tick because cats are also present.
There has been much talk in the press about this being the first "Twitter war"; of this being the first example of (internet) viral warfare. But this is a very real, very bloody conflict that the IDF is shamelessly filtering through digital media. There is, indeed, even a collection of Instagram pictures portraying Israeli soldiers looking all military chic as they get ready to go to war. But while it may be very in vogue to position the deaths of real people in a framework of digital media and social networking, doing so is dangerous. It makes human tragedy seem less tangible and more virtual. It makes real-world devastation feel like what Operation Pillar of Defense sounds like it could very well be: a video game. Which, arguably, could be just what the IDF intended.
The rather brilliant Israeli writer Amos Oz once said that the Israel-Palestine conflict is, ultimately, a dispute over real estate. But it's not: it's a war over nation states. And that means it is a war about the appropriation of falafel just as much as it is a war about the appropriation of land. Both Israel and Palestine have accused each other of being invented and imaginary – and to some extent they are both right. Nation states in general, theorists have argued, are imagined political communities that were first formed around the unifying power of print capitalism. Now, with print being passé, they are imagined communities held together by branding. Which is something that Israel has always been a lot more strategic about than Palestine.
Ever since it officially came into existence in 1948, Israel has gone methodically about the creation of a "Brand Israel". This originally began with an emphasis of the religious significance of a state for the Jewish people. Then, in 2005, when it was time for a rebrand, the Israeli government consulted with American marketing executives to develop a positioning that would appeal to a new generation: an Israel that was "relevant and modern" rather than a place of "fighting and religion". So Israel did some pinkwashing, and suddenly became a vocal champion of gay rights. It fought to retain cultural ownership of falafel, hummus, and Kafka. It poured millions of dollars into tourism campaigns that sought to replace imagery of wartorn landscapes with sun-kissed seascapes.
When it comes to winning modern wars, a robust marketing campaign is as important as a military campaign. But while Israel has long been aware of this, the Palestinians have never been quite so PR-savvy. Back in 2005, the Economist quoted a Palestinian official who said that Israelis "spend a lot of time in marketing, and they succeed, whereas the Palestinians have a really good product, but invest nothing in selling it". Several years on, nothing has changed. The Palestinian messaging currently being most amplified by the media consists of Hamas's crazed proclamations about "gates of hell". This curries no international favour for the broader, more moderate Palestinian community – which, being half-Palestinian, I number myself among.
While Palestine should certainly not be looking at emulating the IDF's feverous Twitter-tactics, it should be following Israel's lead in a more sophisticated approach towards nation-branding. Because, in today's world, if there is ever to be a Palestine there needs to first be a "Brand Palestine".
Why Palestine must match Israel in the branding war
Israel's use of Twitter as a PR tool in the attacks on Gaza draws on a long history of branding that Palestinians have yet to match
Arwa Mahdawi
guardian.co.uk
Here we go again. Israel and Gaza are embattled, and innocent civilians are dying. And as the "collateral damage" mounts, so too does the jargon-ridden justification. There is, however, something new amidst this deja vu, and that is the prominence of Twitter as a multimedia mouthpiece for said justifications. While Israel has always matched aggressive military action with assertive marketing, this is the first time it has quite so explicitly turned war into what is basically a social-media drive for "Brand Israel".
On Wednesday morning, the Israel Defense Forces made history by choosing to break the news of Operation Pillar of Defense via Twitter. Hamas's military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, promptly tweeted back. In the time since, the IDF has live-tweeted a blow-by-PR-vetted-blow of the campaign. There's also a Tumblr and a selection of infographics and action-packed assassination videos you're encouraged to share with friends. Somebody in the IDF also clearly knows what makes the internet tick because cats are also present.
There has been much talk in the press about this being the first "Twitter war"; of this being the first example of (internet) viral warfare. But this is a very real, very bloody conflict that the IDF is shamelessly filtering through digital media. There is, indeed, even a collection of Instagram pictures portraying Israeli soldiers looking all military chic as they get ready to go to war. But while it may be very in vogue to position the deaths of real people in a framework of digital media and social networking, doing so is dangerous. It makes human tragedy seem less tangible and more virtual. It makes real-world devastation feel like what Operation Pillar of Defense sounds like it could very well be: a video game. Which, arguably, could be just what the IDF intended.
The rather brilliant Israeli writer Amos Oz once said that the Israel-Palestine conflict is, ultimately, a dispute over real estate. But it's not: it's a war over nation states. And that means it is a war about the appropriation of falafel just as much as it is a war about the appropriation of land. Both Israel and Palestine have accused each other of being invented and imaginary – and to some extent they are both right. Nation states in general, theorists have argued, are imagined political communities that were first formed around the unifying power of print capitalism. Now, with print being passé, they are imagined communities held together by branding. Which is something that Israel has always been a lot more strategic about than Palestine.
Ever since it officially came into existence in 1948, Israel has gone methodically about the creation of a "Brand Israel". This originally began with an emphasis of the religious significance of a state for the Jewish people. Then, in 2005, when it was time for a rebrand, the Israeli government consulted with American marketing executives to develop a positioning that would appeal to a new generation: an Israel that was "relevant and modern" rather than a place of "fighting and religion". So Israel did some pinkwashing, and suddenly became a vocal champion of gay rights. It fought to retain cultural ownership of falafel, hummus, and Kafka. It poured millions of dollars into tourism campaigns that sought to replace imagery of wartorn landscapes with sun-kissed seascapes.
When it comes to winning modern wars, a robust marketing campaign is as important as a military campaign. But while Israel has long been aware of this, the Palestinians have never been quite so PR-savvy. Back in 2005, the Economist quoted a Palestinian official who said that Israelis "spend a lot of time in marketing, and they succeed, whereas the Palestinians have a really good product, but invest nothing in selling it". Several years on, nothing has changed. The Palestinian messaging currently being most amplified by the media consists of Hamas's crazed proclamations about "gates of hell". This curries no international favour for the broader, more moderate Palestinian community – which, being half-Palestinian, I number myself among.
While Palestine should certainly not be looking at emulating the IDF's feverous Twitter-tactics, it should be following Israel's lead in a more sophisticated approach towards nation-branding. Because, in today's world, if there is ever to be a Palestine there needs to first be a "Brand Palestine".
To be honest, I wasn't expecting them to take this route. I thought they, like Israel, wouldn't want this to escalate.
Why was no-one condemning Turkey's response to a single rocket from Syria?
^ Turkey have been funding terrorists which have killed thousands of Syrians, they shouldn't have been surprised to have been hit by a Syrian rocket.
http://www.lobelog.com/assassinated...-working-on-permanent-israel-truce-agreement/
Nir Hasson reporting for Haaretz:
Hours before Hamas strongman Ahmed Jabari was assassinated, he received the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel, which included mechanisms for maintaining the cease-fire in the case of a flare-up between Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip. This, according to Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin, who helped mediate between Israel and Hamas in the deal to release Gilad Shalit and has since then maintained a relationship with Hamas leaders.
Baskin told Haaretz on Thursday that senior officials in Israel knew about his contacts with Hamas and Egyptian intelligence aimed at formulating the permanent truce, but nevertheless approved the assassination.
“I think that they have made a strategic mistake,” Baskin said, an error “which will cost the lives of quite a number of innocent people on both sides.”
Baskin accordingly offered a very grim picture of the near future for Gazans and Israelis in the Daily Beast’s “Open Zion” today:
I can only imagine that the assassination of Jaabari has bought us the entry card to Cast Lead II. This time, the experts say, “Let’s finish them off. Let’s do the job that we didn’t do last time. Let’s do a regime change.” Well, I ask: what then? Do we really want to reoccupy Gaza, because that will be the consequence of a regime change. I don’t believe that Netanyahu wants re-occupation. So if that is not what he wants, he must be aware that, on the morning after, we will still be living next to Gaza, which still be run by Hamas. They are not going away and the people of Gaza are not going away.
The assassination of Jaabari was a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of a long term ceasefire. Netanyahu has acted with extreme irresponsibility. He has endangered the people of Israel and struck a real blow against the few important more pragmatic elements within Hamas. He has given another victory to those who seek our destruction, rather than strengthen those who are seeking to find a possibility to live side-by-side, not in peace, but in quiet.
Nir Hasson reporting for Haaretz:
Hours before Hamas strongman Ahmed Jabari was assassinated, he received the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel, which included mechanisms for maintaining the cease-fire in the case of a flare-up between Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip. This, according to Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin, who helped mediate between Israel and Hamas in the deal to release Gilad Shalit and has since then maintained a relationship with Hamas leaders.
Baskin told Haaretz on Thursday that senior officials in Israel knew about his contacts with Hamas and Egyptian intelligence aimed at formulating the permanent truce, but nevertheless approved the assassination.
“I think that they have made a strategic mistake,” Baskin said, an error “which will cost the lives of quite a number of innocent people on both sides.”
Baskin accordingly offered a very grim picture of the near future for Gazans and Israelis in the Daily Beast’s “Open Zion” today:
I can only imagine that the assassination of Jaabari has bought us the entry card to Cast Lead II. This time, the experts say, “Let’s finish them off. Let’s do the job that we didn’t do last time. Let’s do a regime change.” Well, I ask: what then? Do we really want to reoccupy Gaza, because that will be the consequence of a regime change. I don’t believe that Netanyahu wants re-occupation. So if that is not what he wants, he must be aware that, on the morning after, we will still be living next to Gaza, which still be run by Hamas. They are not going away and the people of Gaza are not going away.
The assassination of Jaabari was a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of a long term ceasefire. Netanyahu has acted with extreme irresponsibility. He has endangered the people of Israel and struck a real blow against the few important more pragmatic elements within Hamas. He has given another victory to those who seek our destruction, rather than strengthen those who are seeking to find a possibility to live side-by-side, not in peace, but in quiet.
No, I think he perhaps has a little bit less decorum when it comes to airing his true views on the matter.
People who were amongst the enacters of the dream of zionism expressed similar opinions, why would those views necessarily be different now?
Probably right.
Having family that serves in the IDF special forces, my insights are somewhat more closer to the action and the reality that often hides behind the bollox on both sides.
This is a war between to opposing cultures, Islam v The West, stagnation v progress, across it purest fault line.
Nothing - I repeat - nothing to do with land.
There we go, true honesty of opinion at last.
What do you think of your ultra religious loons? An increasingly assertive ultra-Orthodox minority.
Utter horse shit
Israel government allows the IDF to call 75,000 reservists. I reckon we're going in unless the exchanges end in 48h.
When even Catherine Ashton puts the blame on Hamas you know The Guardian is your only hope.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/religion.html
Israel Shahak
Athough the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is largely a conflict over land and can be resolved through the application of international law, religious groups do play several important roles in the ongoing crisis. Fanatical religious groups use their religions to perpetuate the conflict, while peaceful religious groups use the teachings of their religions to call for peace.
Although the American media is rife with articles on the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, it is important to be aware of the role of two other fanaticisms – Jewish and Christian – in this conflict.
According to the late Israeli professor Israel Shahak, Israel denies Palestinian Christians and Muslims their basic human rights due in large part to a virulent strain of Jewish chauvinism. Shahak states that, “The State of Israel officially discriminates in favour of Jews and against non-Jews in many domains of life, of which I regard three as being the most important: residency rights, the right to work and the right to equality before the law.” This discrimination is arguably the largest blockage to peace between the two parties.
The Israeli settler movement, in particular, which is responsible for stealing a huge portion of Palestinian land, is primarily based on this chauvinism. Particularly disturbing is the description of their land theft as ‘redeeming’ the land – transfering holy land from non-Jewish ownership to Jewish hands. Shahak explains that, “[t]he logical conclusion of such an ideology is the expulsion, called ‘transfer’, of all non-Jews from the area of land which has to be ‘redeemed’.
In recent years there has been a bizarre marriage of fanaticisms. Some prominent members of the American Christian Right have joined with Jewish Zionists in their discrimination against non-Jews (primarily Christian and Muslim Palestinians) in the land that is holy to all three religions. Some of these Christian Zionists adhere to a previously rare theology called “Dispensationalism,” in which select scriptures from the Old Testament are interpreted to predict a series of violent events that will lead to the “second coming” of Christ. This Dispensationalist belief calls for all Jews to “return” to Israel/Palestine, which will then bring a cataclysmic “rapture,” in which 120,000 Jews will convert to Christianity and the millions remaining will be killed in a cruel and bloody battle, which will then, in turn, bring the return to earth of Jesus Christ.
Most Christians consider such violence the antithesis of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even groups who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible largely believe that the Second Coming will happen “in God’s way” and “in God’s time,” not through human intervention, and emphasize New Testament teachings of love and compassion. Nevertheless, the Dispensationalist interpretation is being promoted on numerous religious radio stations and elsewhere, appears well-financed, and is a significant factor.
Among the Jewish religious community there is a similar split, with religious opposition to Zionism found across the spectrum of Jewish belief. In fact, originally Zionism was a minority position among the Jewish population worldwide, only attaining its present large proportions after World War II and the Nazi atrocities. Today, a growing number of Jewish organizations and individuals consider Zionism deeply contrary to Judaism. For example, members of Neturei Karta believe that Jews “are a people in exile due to Divine decree,” and that their “banishment from the Holy Land will end miraculously at a time when all mankind will unite in the brotherly service of the Creator.” These many groups feel that Israel’s violent policies are not only counterproductive but contrary to the ethical traditions they view as the core of Judaism.
Israel isn't a Western country, and most of the West are a mite more sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians than the plight of the Israelis.
If Hamas start targeting Jerusalem, Israel will surely send the ground troops in?
I can't recall a big fuss kicking in, or even a short thread when Der Spiegel accused the Turks of using chemical weapons against the Kurds either.
The world cares about the ME only when Israel is involved. As long as Arabs/Muslims kill each other rich white men don't give shit. I reckon it's racism. They expect Muslims to kill each other, and accept it as a fact of life.
If they do, they're even more stupid than they appear.
I actually agree with you. I don't think it's quite to the level you describe, people do care but human rights abuses in Arab countries do go horribly unreported and ignored within supposedly progressive publications and organisations. It doesn't excuse what I see as Israel's crimes (again, I know we'll probably disagree on the word "crimes" here) but yes, the lack of concern for equally horrifying actions in other parts of the world is a genuine issue. It was one of the few arguments Dershowitz made in The Case for Israel that I agreed with wholeheartedly.
feck me, the Ultra-Zionist israeli government decides to pass on the opportunity to hand its people security to a "peace activist" claiming to have brokered a deal with a murderer.
Who said anything about handing its peoples' security to one person?
Yeah, seems inevitable now actually. Israel can't have rockets capable of reaching Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in terrorist hands.
The question I have is why have Hamas shown their hand. I'm sure Israel knew they had these weapons but why have Hamas effectively invited in the IDF ground force?
That blogger quoted in the left-wing pamplet that Ha'aretz has become. Good job it is likely to run out of business soon.
But he hasn't said that at all...unless I'm reading something in the incorrect manner?
In fact, the missiles Hizballah has at its disposal cover the entire Israeli territory and are considerably more poweful.
I think Hamas miscalculated its actions earlier in the week, and in recent weeks. Perhaps it counted on Israeli reluctance to piss off Mursi, or felt some immunity because of the pending elections here.
Utter horsecrap, it has everything to do with land. Israel and the US could be easily be intertwined, but you can't simply pitch them in with the rest of the Western world. Most European nations vowed to vote in favour of the recent UN resolution which would recognise Palestine as a country and most voted to admit them into the UNESCO.
You're trying to do the typical right-wing Zionist cheap trick in tainting anyone who supports the notion of a Palestinian state as a sympathiser of Islamic extremism.
RK what was the reason for Palestinians not wanting an independent state during the Jordanian occupation, or for Jordan not wanting to start the same process? Surely some sort of Palestinian political autonomy could have been achieved in that long time which then could have potentially kicked off a transition into full independence or at least some sort of federation?!