|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2018 8:09:13 GMT 1
We've had perfectly clear and forceful expositions on both sides of the argument: MR/mrsonde; and fascinating/Nay (which was worth seeing). Given the stakes, for the whole of the Middle East, and of the world, there have got to be some points of compromise that can be negotiated, and then some more ... ... Despite Trump's malign influence on the idea of compromise and cooperation, and on the whole world. Aqua, it seems to me that Israel does not want any deal, and wants to continue stealing Palestinian land for its own citizens; it wants to stop all criticism so that it can continue this theft without restriction.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 31, 2018 9:43:33 GMT 1
Mr Calverd said
I agree and said the same to a Syrian acquaintance a few days ago. The "one reason " is antisemitism of the Arabs and of some in the West. Nothing would change in the Middle East if Israel were to be annihilated. It would be just as bad if not worse than before - dictatorship, corruption, rocketing population growth and no jobs.
Anyone who thinks Arabs can can be trusted to deal straight with Israel are Pollyannas. The combined armies of 5 neighbouring Arab states invaded Israel the day after it declared independence in 1948. So why should Israel bend over backwards to appease anti-Semites?
Israel "stealing land", fascinating? Israel is merely being sensible in the face of almost overwhelming odds against it. Israel is not an exersise in interfaith democracy nor is it an exercise in politically correct moralism. We can leave that to those who have no skin in the fight like you.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 31, 2018 10:22:56 GMT 1
...it is being seriously mooted that Israel should not be criticised (or else the critic be in danger of being prosecuted for anti-semitism)... It is not. Can we get rid of this dangerous fiction once and for all? What is 'being mooted' is that a precise moral eqivalence between the Nazis' proposed solution to the 'Jewish Question' and anything undertaken by modern Israel in respect of the 'Palestinians' (whoever they may be) should not be allowed to become a given, not open to question. That is the focus of the example the Labour Party doesn't like and wants to remove from their version of the IHRA definition.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 31, 2018 10:46:35 GMT 1
You are not an inhabitant of Israel, but I think I am right in saying that its survival is of concern to you. You have no posible justification for assuming that. Apart, perhaps, from prejudice. Citation needed. Most unliklely anyway: "if you want three opinions, ask two Jews". Collective my arse. and buys $100bn of oil from Saudi Arabia each year, to support the bombing of Yemeni civilians. So what? Yes. Please see to it. No. Because Palestine was destroyed by UN mandate many years ago. Likewise umpteen ancient states in Europe and Africa, most of which had better-definied boundaries and effective native administration. It was argued that any entity recognisable as Palestine was created by the previous British mandate and could therefore be legitimately dismantled by the British government, just like any other colony or military base. The difference is that for the most part the descendants of Herzegovinians and Bugandans have got on with business instead of complaining about history and expecting everyone else to bail them out of selfimposed misery..
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 31, 2018 11:08:46 GMT 1
Very well put, Mr Calverd. Time for the bleeding hearts to ask themselves why some Arabs are so incapable of "moving on" when everyone else does. A little more historical consciousness and much less political correctness and moralism is in order.
Seventy years of whingeing from Palestinians et al and their brain dead proxies in the West is enough. Never mind calling for a "solution" or a "settlement" to the matter . Just start calling for the whole sorry matter to be dropped into the dustbin of history and for normal life to resume in that neck of the woods.
(And give Gazan women a break from excessive child bearing.)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 31, 2018 11:26:02 GMT 1
"the USA which gives $3.1 billion a year to Israel in military aid"
And does fascinating know that the second largest recipient of US aid is Egypt?
Why are the PC so bloody ignorant of the actualité?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 31, 2018 14:44:06 GMT 1
...it is being seriously mooted that Israel should not be criticised (or else the critic be in danger of being prosecuted for anti-semitism)... It is not. Can we get rid of this dangerous fiction once and for all? What is 'being mooted' is that a precise moral eqivalence between the Nazis' proposed solution to the 'Jewish Question' and anything undertaken by modern Israel in respect of the 'Palestinians' (whoever they may be) should not be allowed to become a given, not open to question. That is the focus of the example the Labour Party doesn't like and wants to remove from their version of the IHRA definition. Not quite These are working definitions of Anti-Semitism from the IHRA document: This is peculiar indeed as the Jews of Jerusalem did effectively kill Jesus. Now I know that this accusation has led to some horrific acts against Jews that took no part in the killing, but how on earth can it be anti-Semitic to tell the truth and pro-semitic to state a lie? This is the point you are making Jean, but what if Israel actually does in the future, act like the Nazi's. Indeed what or who did they act like in Deir Yassim? This is ambiguous indeed. Israel is a Jewish State, founded by Jews, and largely kept intact by the good offices of clever Jews in the USA, it has recently passed a law stating that it is a State for all the Jews. If I say the Jews did 'x' in the West Bank -does that mean ALL Jews or just the Jews that explicitly support the Jewish State, or just the Jews that actually performed the Act? Is it racist of our ex-colonials to say 'The ENglish performed 'x' atrocity in our country? I think the Labour Party is quite right to add caveats that clear up ambiguity, but this act in itself is condemned by some Jewish (and non-Jewish) people as evidence of Labour's anti-Semitism. As usual there is a lot of pernicious virtue-signalling going on that the IHRA document, as it stands is not helping to stem
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 31, 2018 15:46:19 GMT 1
This is peculiar indeed as the Jews of Jerusalem did effectively kill Jesus. Not sure what you mean by "effectively kill", but crucifixion was a Roman lethal torture, not a permitted method of execution under Jewish law, and no occupying power has ever ceded the death penalty to the occupied judiciary. Why else was Jesus taken before Caiaphas? Try reading the Bible a bit. Anyway, whoever you are, I'm sure that some of your ancestors or their co-religionists were complicit in the murder of somebody (Crusades, Inquisition?) so please feel free to hang yourself in shame for the sins of your race. Or you? Perhaps we should imprison you now, just in case you, someone like you, or the British government, does something unpleasant in the future. AFAIK the Right of Return was introduced in the 1940s. Still, anyone who thinks the murder of one revolutionary rabbi by the Romans (whatever happened to them?) is still relevant, probably thinks 1948 was yesterday. I repeat: apart from the fact that most of its citizens are Jews, what is so special about Israel?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 31, 2018 17:07:25 GMT 1
...the Jews of Jerusalem did effectively kill Jesus. Now I know that this accusation has led to some horrific acts against Jews that took no part in the killing, but how on earth can it be anti-Semitic to tell the truth...? Because if (as you say yourself) it was only a minority of Jews that took any part in the killing of Christ, it is but a partial 'truth' to imply that they were all responsible, especially since Jesus and his followers were also Jews. Oh, but wait - perhaps you needn't worry too much about that, if as St Matthew tells us, 'the Jews' conveniently inculpated themselves crying out 'His blood be upon us and upon our children'.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2018 17:42:47 GMT 1
Mr Calverd said " Israel is of no consequence to anyone except its inhabitants, but for one reason and one reason only, it dominates the headlines day after day." I agree and said the same to a Syrian acquaintance a few days ago. The "one reason " is antisemitism of the Arabs and of some in the West. Nothing would change in the Middle East if Israel were to be annihilated. It would be just as bad if not worse than before - dictatorship, corruption, rocketing birth rate and no jobs. Anyone who thinks Arabs can can be trusted to deal straight with Israel are Pollyannas. The combined armies of 5 neighbouring Arab states invaded Israel the day after it declared independence in 1948. So why should Israel bend over backwards to appease anti-Semites? Israel "stealing land", fascinating? Israel is merely being sensible in the face of almost overwhelming odds against it. Israel is not an exersise in interfaith democracy nor is it an exercise in politically correct moralism. We can leave that to those who have no skin in the fight like you. I don't agree that we should allow what happened 70 years ago to completely govern our policies today. Nobody here is arguing for Israel to be annihilated. Do you seriously think that could happen nuclear-armed, American-backed, Israel? Neither side trusts the other, so I suggest that a settlement is brokered by impartial statemen from around the world. But of course Israel doesn't want any interference in its free hand to do what it likes. I see you don't deny that they steal land; I think you suggest that they have to do that for their security. I would like to know what you mean be that. Are you saying that Israel has, by right, being victor, and for security reasons, to take over the West Bank? If Israel is not an exercise in interfaith democracy, does that mean it is not a democracy which believes in giving equal rights to people of all faiths?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2018 17:44:45 GMT 1
...it is being seriously mooted that Israel should not be criticised (or else the critic be in danger of being prosecuted for anti-semitism)... It is not. Can we get rid of this dangerous fiction once and for all? What is 'being mooted' is that a precise moral eqivalence between the Nazis' proposed solution to the 'Jewish Question' and anything undertaken by modern Israel in respect of the 'Palestinians' (whoever they may be) should not be allowed to become a given, not open to question. That is the focus of the example the Labour Party doesn't like and wants to remove from their version of the IHRA definition. I quoted MR's words that seem to say that it is not a fiction.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2018 18:30:46 GMT 1
You are telling me that the survival of Israel is of no concern to you? I didn't assume that you were concerned for its survival because you are a Jew - I am well aware that there are Jews who don't want the whole Zionist project - but because of the things you have written here which seem to support everything Israel does 100% A 2017 American Jewish Committee poll found that 72 percent of American Jews believe that “caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew.” Half of US Jews had been to Israel at least once in their lives, per the AJC data; of those, most had made the trip multiple times. www.vox.com/world/2018/5/15/17352640/israel-gaza-embassy-american-jews. I'm happy to revise my figure of 4 million down to about 3 million. The point is: you said "Israel is of no consequence to anyone except its inhabitants" I pointed out that the million of Jews in the US and the $3.1 billion of direct military aid prove that the USA regards the existence of Israel as being consequential. Stating the trade figures with any other country is irrelevant. I can't, only Israel can do that. But at least you agree that it should. Good. I don't know what exact UN mandate destroyed Palestine. Anyway, as I keep asking, if the people of the West Bank do not live in Palestine, which country do you suggest they live in? I am glad you mentioned the Herzegovinians - Yugoslavia is a good example of peoples who were long restive about being in a state that they didn't want to live in; they got on with living - at least they were citizens of a state that they could get on with their lives in - but for about 40 years their resentment seethed, then exploded into war, and they eventually they got to live in the state that they wanted to. However, the people of the West Bank have been more than half a century without a state. This is one reason why this conflict is so unique and of continued worldwide concern.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2018 18:35:04 GMT 1
"the USA which gives $3.1 billion a year to Israel in military aid" And does fascinating know that the second largest recipient of US aid is Egypt? Why are the PC so bloody ignorant of the actualité? I am not PC and I am not ignorant of the fact that Egypt also gets aid (though not as much as Israel). I was pointing out Israel's receipt of $3.1 billion of aid from the USA annually proves Alan's claim, that the existence of Israel is of no consequence to anybody but Israelis, as manifestly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2018 18:41:52 GMT 1
I cannot agree with you there Pro A. The Romans were the supreme authority and they sentenced Jesus to death, and carried out the sentence. The gospels say that some Jews demanded the death of Jesus, they may have arrested him and taken him to the Romans, demanding his death, but the Romans took it upon themselves to have power in the land and administer justice, so the unjust outcome is clearly the culpability of the Romans, who had the power to release him if they had wanted. Even if we believe the Barabbas story, Pilate showed failure in administering justice in deciding the accuseds fate by referring the matter to a baying mob.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Sept 1, 2018 0:04:26 GMT 1
Israel "stealing land", fascinating? Israel is merely being sensible in the face of almost overwhelming odds against it. Israel is not an exersise in interfaith democracy nor is it an exercise in politically correct moralism. We can leave that to those who have no skin in the fight like you. MR, no-one likes 'ad hominems'. If that was intended as one, let us know, but not the details, please. If it wasn't, accept my apologies.
|
|