|
Post by aquacultured on Sept 3, 2018 23:28:30 GMT 1
I can't read the link, as I don't do facebook (or twitter).
But, Nay, you're talking about the final solution.
Maybe you didn't realise. I hope.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 4, 2018 0:27:35 GMT 1
Every so often, British local authorities demolish buildings that do not have planning permission, and some woolly-thinking nonresident who does not own the land and whose home has not been blighted by the said structure, concocts a shock-horror headline campaign. Good to see the same happens in Israel. But why is it a mere page-filler in the UK, and a major international scandal that demands a complete redrawing of national boundaries, massive compensation and unlimited sackcloth and ashes when the Israeli authorities do it? Could it be because they are Jewish, perhaps?
Military occupation of previously hostile territory, eh? Not like the Allied occupation of Germany, surely. Obviously not. Having been comprehensively inconvenienced by the total destruction of several cities and the death of most of their young men, the Germans admitted defeat,apologised for starting the fight, and got on with the job of clearing up and rebuilding a stable democracy and economy in collaboration with their former enemies and sadly misnamed untermenschen, thus (like the Japanese) providing a good model of how to lose well. Seems as though a perfect opportunity for the West Bank etc to advance 13 centuries towards the present, has been squandered by the residents. Why?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 4, 2018 7:21:20 GMT 1
Oh, I get it. In Western societies, with pretense of civilisation, there is a moral code that says you shouldn't kill people without justification. In judeao-christian heritage it is expressed in the 5th commandment "thou shalt not kill". Of course, the most questionable justifications have been used to excuse killing, but at least the moral code is there. When Bomber Harris was running the city bombing campaign, he was disgusted by politicians who were trying to justify it by saying we were just hitting back, Harris plainly stated that people should be told the truth, the purpose was to destroy the homes of millions, induce a refugee crisis, and thereby create a groudswell of protest that would destroy the Nazi regime.
But now there is NO NEED for Israel to give any justification why they kill unarmed people. Israel can kill who it wants when it wants. So no morality then.
Irrelevant examples.
Again irrelevant. Israel's exclusion zone is not marked.
Totally incorrect. I am only against unnecessary killing. You have been unable to tell me anything that is achieved by shooting unarmed persons.
At least the suggestion of declaring peace makes sense. The PA seems to have declared peace with Israel, and even co-operates in security sweeps. That doesn't stop Israel stealing land, harassing farmers and killing Palestinians. However, an agreed truce would be some kind of starting point.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 4, 2018 7:36:12 GMT 1
Utter pollyanna poppycock. Apart from the last sentence. War is not a game.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 4, 2018 7:40:24 GMT 1
I can't read the link, as I don't do facebook (or twitter). But, Nay, you're talking about the final solution. Maybe you didn't realise. I hope. He didn't mention the final solution. He asked a question, beginning "What is the difference..?" I don't approve of accusations of Nazi-ism of fascism. Whether or not people are acting like Nazis is not the issue, the issue, for me, is people being killed and injured, endlessly. There is some truth in what Alan says about getting your home demolished if you put one up without planning permission, though the extent and manner of house demolitions in Israel is of a different order.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 4, 2018 7:52:50 GMT 1
I can't read the link, as I don't do facebook (or twitter). But, Nay, you're talking about the final solution. Maybe you didn't realise. I hope. No I am not talking of the final solution. I am talking of the brutality of the NAZI regime and the brutality of the Israeli regime in specific instances But talking of 'final solutions', what was the 'final solution' that was necessary to establish the Jewsish state? I know, one does not compare to the other in terms of horror at the total inhumanity, number of deaths and sheer awfulnes , so the comparison is not valid - the only real point of similarity is that they both involved 'displacement' - getting rid of - people that were of the wrong religion But Israel was only established by its deliberate 'ethnic cleansing' of the resident population That will forever be a stain on the reputation of a democratic state that holds largely Western values They cannot, of course, allow the families of those that were ethnically cleansed to return, because Israel is an oddity - it is a 'democratic' state for specifically for people of one religion, NOT people that have the RIGHT to live there They must pay reparations to the people they, as a matter of policy, expelled from their homes and land; enough money to allow them to buy homes in Europe or America (especially Europe - it was for the sins of of Europe that these people were made to pay the price)
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 4, 2018 7:57:53 GMT 1
Utter pollyanna poppycock. Apart from the last sentence. War is not a game. Calling something "utter polyanna poppycock" is not a rational argument.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 4, 2018 7:59:22 GMT 1
Every so often, British local authorities demolish buildings that do not have planning permission, and some woolly-thinking nonresident who does not own the land and whose home has not been blighted by the said structure, concocts a shock-horror headline campaign. Good to see the same happens in Israel. But why is it a mere page-filler in the UK, and a major international scandal that demands a complete redrawing of national boundaries, massive compensation and unlimited sackcloth and ashes when the Israeli authorities do it? Could it be because they are Jewish, perhaps? Military occupation of previously hostile territory, eh? Not like the Allied occupation of Germany, surely. Obviously not. Having been comprehensively inconvenienced by the total destruction of several cities and the death of most of their young men, the Germans admitted defeat,apologised for starting the fight, and got on with the job of clearing up and rebuilding a stable democracy and economy in collaboration with their former enemies and sadly misnamed untermenschen, thus (like the Japanese) providing a good model of how to lose well. Seems as though a perfect opportunity for the West Bank etc to advance 13 centuries towards the present, has been squandered by the residents. Why? Your comparisons are bollocks and you know it. In Britain we do not designate areas specifically fo people of a particular religion, and destroy the homes of people who are not of that religion in order to make room for the preferred ones No not at all like the British occupation of defeated Germany, not in any way like the British occupation of Germany, it is absurd to compare the two. You know this yet insist on advancing reasons that are verey weak to 'justify' Israeli actions I
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 4, 2018 8:16:26 GMT 1
Why do you keep pretending (because you must know it is not true) that the situation 70 years ago is analogous to the one in the ME now?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 4, 2018 8:45:21 GMT 1
"I am asking if you think that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza should move out."
I should have thought that was clear. Yes, I think the money spent supporting Palestinians in situ by various bodies should be spent on financing them to move out and more importantly to "move on" in all its geographical and psychological senses. Any other use of the vast sums now available is a complete waste of money and simply foments more and more Palestinian extremism and trouble.
The armed conflicts between Arabs and Jews in Palestine are not a mere 50 years old, fascinating. They go back into the 1930s and never even stopped for the Second World War.
There is no "solution" to the Arab Israel conflict. That is the first thing that the likes of fascinating should realise. There is only the hope that the Palestinians and their misguided supporters in the West will put the matter to rest by turning their back on it and getting a life instead of living a ghastly permanent revenge epic in which they willingly sacrifice their children and then blame others for the deaths.
There is no way Arabs can be trusted to deal straight with Israel and no way any sane Israeli government will EVER accept guidance from moralistic prigs abroad with no skin in the fight. This is what is so distasteful about the obsession some people have with the "poor Palestinians". It is an apoplectic PC spectator sport of people whose sense of priorities is fatally flawed. Get over it. Be a mensch. Those who can't are just wankers.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 4, 2018 18:01:42 GMT 1
Calling something "utter polyanna poppycock" is not a rational argument. It's a summary judgement, not an argument.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 4, 2018 18:04:33 GMT 1
In Britain we do not designate areas specifically fo people of a particular religion, and destroy the homes of people who are not of that religion in order to make room for the preferred ones So what? The source you quoted did not cite religion as the reason for demolition. Is the petticoat of prejudice showing?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 4, 2018 19:30:18 GMT 1
I was not aware of this before, but in fact there was an ALL PARTY parliamentary committee on anti-semitism, in 2016. Their report (pdf document) is here publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/136.pdf. In paragraph 24 they say that they broadly accept the IHRA definiton, but with 2 clarifications "It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent." "It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent" Paragraph 25 says "We recommend that the IHRA definition, with our additional caveats, should be formally adopted by the UK Government, law enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as antisemitic." Is someone going to suggest that the committee was anti-semitic?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 4, 2018 19:31:16 GMT 1
Calling something "utter polyanna poppycock" is not a rational argument. It's a summary judgement, not an argument. A meaningless judgement.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 4, 2018 19:44:27 GMT 1
You keep saying that, yes war is not a game, but what do you mean by saying it?
Israel is one of the signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and International Humanitarian Law, I think, which says that Persons who are hors de combat (outside of combat), and those who are not taking part in hostilities in situation of armed conflict (e.g., neutral nationals), shall be protected in all circumstances and Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against legitimate military targets.[31]
|
|