PDA

View Full Version : Palestine?


Pages : [1] 2

BarbiesBoyfriend
21st Sep 2011, 21:06
So, according to the US, Palestine can't be a state unless they can somehow talk Israel into saying they can be a state.

Isn't Israel a state? How did they become a state then, considering their territory used to be Palestine?

Perhaps some wise owl will explain how what seemms to b e crass hypocrisy on the part of the US, actually isn't? :)

Tankertrashnav
21st Sep 2011, 21:09
Counting down to thread closure or move to US Hamsterwheel

10 - 9 - 8 -7 .... ;)

con-pilot
21st Sep 2011, 21:12
Most likely closed, as this has been done to death sooooo many times.

BarbiesBoyfriend
21st Sep 2011, 21:16
Well, the BBC are airing the views of an American man who clearly sees the flaw in the US' position.

As does every impartial person.

BarbiesBoyfriend
21st Sep 2011, 21:17
Con. I dont remember a previous attempt at 'recognition' by the Palestinians. At least not in the UN.

con-pilot
21st Sep 2011, 21:34
I was referring to the whole Israel vs Palestine issue here in JB. As to statements like this of yours.

considering their territory used to be Palestine?



It's been done to death. That's all. If it stays, it stays and I'll join in the debate as long as it remains civil.

vulcanised
21st Sep 2011, 21:37
I doubt whether any of us will live long enough to see Palestine get any sort of justice.

parabellum
21st Sep 2011, 21:38
It was a UN mandate around 1948 that stated that a land that had been the ancestral home of Jews/Israelites for the last 3,500 years would now be properly recognised as 'Israel'. All would have been well as the Palestinians didn't really care, life carried on, but then the major agitators, in this case Russia, got in on the act and it all went TU, been that way ever since.

BarbiesBoyfriend
21st Sep 2011, 21:56
Con. Well, lets agree on the 'civil' aspect at the very least.

Personally. I can't see the harm in the Palestinians gaining 'statehood'.

Tactically, it seems a good move for them.

With all the stuff happening in the ME at the moment, any progess here can only be for the good.

con-pilot
21st Sep 2011, 22:03
With all the stuff happening in the ME at the moment, any progess here can only be for the good.

No argument with that at all.

BarbiesBoyfriend
21st Sep 2011, 22:08
Parabellum.

I thought the Jews were 'scattered' in Biblical times and were therefore mostly absent for at least the most recent 2000, of the 3500 years you refer to- but I'm no theologist!

And since then it's all gone swimmingley. Right? :uhoh:

11Fan
21st Sep 2011, 22:11
If you're so inclined. Ten minutes of one man's opinion.

» Debunking the Palestine Lie - Big Government (http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2011/09/21/debunking-the-palestine-lie/)

You can skip the comments, the usual riff-raf. The video is what I wanted to draw your attention to. You can make up your own minds.

BarbiesBoyfriend
21st Sep 2011, 22:13
11 fan

Just before I start on your link- it IS impartial- Right?

11Fan
21st Sep 2011, 22:15
Just before I start on your link- it IS impartial- Right?

Is anything anymore? To answer your question; (I did say No at first but I am amending it to this), I suppose that it depends on your point of view but that is why I said it was one man's opinion. Don't feel obligated though.

Added: If an olive branch is offered several times over, a branch which actually honors the demand yet it is repeatedly rejected, one wonders if peace is really the goal.

ChristiaanJ
21st Sep 2011, 22:37
For many years, smart and educated Palestinians have emigrated... either to elsewhere in the Middle East, or even to the US.
That leaves one wondering about the remnant....

CJ

parabellum
21st Sep 2011, 22:39
one wonders if peace is really the goal.

One of their goals is to keep their 'problems' front and centre in world politics and continually to be in receipt of literally billions of dollars in aid, most of which doesn't appear to get to the people, just ask Yasser Arafat's wife, Oh, that's right, she was paid off with a lot of hush money, wasn't she?

rh200
21st Sep 2011, 22:54
As does every impartial person. Making the statement that unless someone agrees with a position is itself impartial!

One mans impartial is another's lefty or righty.

They could have have what they want if they went to a peacful resistance model, this is not what the extreme right in the Palistinian side of the conflict or extreme parts of the Islamic side want. For that matter I'm sure there's extreme sides of the Jewish bit who wouldn't like that either.

By continuing along the Jihad type of route all they do is give the Israeli's an excuse. So hence whilst they continue down that route, hell can freeze over before they get a state as far as I'm concerned. They go to the peaceful resistance type of thing and if given ten years things hav'nt changed then I'd even support aussie troops changing things on the ground.

Andu
22nd Sep 2011, 01:48
The Arab leadership back in 1948 (and since) were incredibly clever, if even more cynical, in refusing to allow the displaced population of Palestine to be absorbed into their almost identical cultures. (A far easier proposition for them, with the same language and religion, it was for the US, Canada, Australia and the South American countries when they absorbed so many from Eastern Europe who were displaced by WW2 at that same time.) Instead, the Palestinians were quite purposely left there in "the camps" (misnamed, as anyone who has seen them will attest) to fester and produce a hugely disaffected population of young men, young men fed a diet of hate and a self-serving version of history that doesn't bear close scrutiny.

For instance, far from stealing the Arab lands, the Zionist organisations BOUGHT the land in many cases from absentee Arab landlords, (who lived mostly in places like Damascus or Cairo) who thought they were pulling a fast one on the stupid Jews, for much of it was swamp land or desert. These same Arab landlords didn't give a damn about their fellow Arab tenants who'd be displaced by the sales. (In the early, unsuccessful, Zionist attempts to farm the land, the Jews actually employed these Arab tenants.)

Equally, if not more cynical were the British, who created Jordan (or Transjordan) from what was then a large part of Palestine as a consolation prize for their allies, the Hashemites, who they'd dumped in favour of the Wahabi Saud clan in what is now Saudi Arabia after WW1. Modern day Jordan used to be Palestine, both in the days of the Ottaman Empire and during the British Mandate.

The result is the utter mess we see today, with everyone earnestly believing their version of history. The saddest part of it all is a large population of Palestinians who have grown up in "the camps", cynically manipulated by an Arab religious and political leadership with an agenda, to the point where many of them know nothing except a deep, abiding hatred of Israel and a desire to "regain" something that was never there until the Israelis created it.

It's reached the point now where I think you could give the Palestinians everything they demand, including the whole of Israel, with every ex-Israeli house intact, the fridge full and larder fully stocked, even the bank accounts of the ex-owners - and within six months, they'd be demanding the West provided them with more.

Manchikeri
22nd Sep 2011, 02:07
It was a UN mandate around 1948 that stated that a land that had been the ancestral home of Jews/Israelites for the last 3,500 years would now be properly recognised as 'Israel'. All would have been well as the Palestinians didn't really care, life carried on, but then the major agitators, in this case Russia, got in on the act and it all went TU, been that way ever since.

That is probably the most concise rendering of the situation I have ever read in my life.

Well done, that man! (Or woman, as the case may be.)

lomapaseo
22nd Sep 2011, 02:49
Isn't this akin to the slaves, tenant farmers and landowners in the USA 150 years ago, only without outside interference?

Look at how well we solved the problem with the help of the KKK and bulldozers (Grapes of Wrath, etc.)

11Fan
22nd Sep 2011, 03:55
Isn't this akin to the slaves, tenant farmers and landowners in the USA 150 years ago, only without outside interference?

I'm not making that connection lom. :confused: Can you elaborate?

etrang
22nd Sep 2011, 04:04
Perhaps some wise owl will explain how what seemms to b e crass hypocrisy on the part of the US, actually isn't?

No one will try that. Crass hypocrisy is what governments do best, not just the US, all of them.

BarbiesBoyfriend
22nd Sep 2011, 09:17
Well. It's some sort of achievement that this thread is still here. Lets keep it civil and it might last a few more days.

What I was driving at is this:

'What possible harm could it do were the UN to recognise Palestine as a state?'

Clearly both the US and Israel are dead against it and the US will veto it (as usual) but a majority in the UN may well be for it.

Personally, I just think the US/ Israel simply see it as advancement for the Palestinians, so they oppose it.

In a similar way, a chess player tries to prevent promotion of his opponents pieces, even though he has lost nothing of his own-yet.

In other words, Statehood means little- but any advance ought to be checked early lest it lead to actual progress.

Am I being too cynical?

WhiskeyKilo
22nd Sep 2011, 10:16
Back before WW1 the World Zionist Organization was formed which wanted a Jewish state to be created in what was promised to them in the Torah/Bible. This was to mainly escape persecution (especially in Eastern Europe) from Catholics who thought they were stubborn among other things. They got funds from wealthy Jews such as the Rothschild family and started buying land in Israel. They gradually started moving there in the early 20's and buying up land. The mass immigration started when the Nazi's came to power and Palestine (at that time a British Mandate) was flooded by Jewish immigrants.

In response the the Jewish immigration there was mass riots among the Arab community with many Jews being slaughtered. Because the British seemed to do nothing to prevent these (apart from restricting Jewish Immigration) the Jews formed their own unofficial and underground 'government' and defense force, the Haganah. It was this organization of the Jews which eventually was the advantage when it came to a state.

As mentioned a few posts before in 1947 the UN constructed plans for a partition with Jerusalem an international zone, the Jews accepted because their aim was to get a state, the Arabs rejected it as they believed it did not represent the majority fairly. In the war that followed (the 6 days war) Israel gained most of the land after defeating the Arabs (Palestinians), Egyptians, Jordan's, Iraqi's and the Syrians.

They remain in 'control' of that land today with the exception of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Curious Pax
22nd Sep 2011, 10:45
'What possible harm could it do were the UN to recognise Palestine as a state?'


I suspect that they see it as the Palestinians getting something for nothing, especially as the Palestinians en masse haven't recognised Israel's right to exist (ie also be recognised as a state). I know that some parts of the Palestinian hierarchy have, some have but not with words acceptable to Israel, and some haven't. Better used as a bargaining chip in future negotiations if they ever happen.

I am also a cynic - too many vested interests on both sides in the current situation. The Palestinian side has already been mentioned, whilst there would be a huge cost to the Israeli economy if everything was peaceful there, as presumably the US aid to them would reduce, and the Israeli government also wouldn't spend as much with their defence industry.

A pragmatist in power on both sides would help, but I don't see much sign of that happening anytime soon. Pragmatic words come from both sides often enough, but they don't often carry through into actions.

corsair
22nd Sep 2011, 11:30
The result is the utter mess we see today, with everyone earnestly believing their version of history.Quote of the day from Andu. People who have embraced the currently trendy Palestinian cause would do well to study the history of the region.

It has been said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But they've been ill used by their own leaders and other Arab states. It suited despotic regimes all over the Arab world to have Israel as a hate figure. Hating Israel distracted people from the oppression visited on them by their own. Now with despots falling like dominos. Maybe there'll be a change.

If nothing else the Palestinians need to get real about their position.

Ancient Observer
22nd Sep 2011, 11:53
Very strange logic.....

The UK Times leader this morning says that a State can't be created simply by a declaration by the UN. It goes on to say that the Palestinians should negotiate with Israel......................


er, wouldn't they be negotiating with a State that was created by the UN?????????

The stats that concern me most are the ones about the deaths. For every Israeli that has been killed in the area since 1967, 10 Arabs have been killed.

parabellum
22nd Sep 2011, 12:04
The stats that concern me most are the ones about the deaths. For every Israeli that has been killed in the area since 1967, 10 Arabs have been killed.



Compared to ten hostile acts on the part of the Arabs to one by the Israelis, don't forget those stats of yours AE will include the victims of the various wars in which the Arabs showed their total incompetence and they suffered accordingly.

Ancient Observer
22nd Sep 2011, 12:10
Incompetence is a fair point. But then the Palestinians are not armed and trained by the US of A.

For Brits, a comparison might be the Frogs invading and occupying a large part of Kent and half of Sussex, with armed settlements in London and Surrey.
Whilst the Frogs can keep their armed settlements in Sarf London, I suspect that the Brits would want the other bits back.

I'm still at a loss about the logic in The Times.

sitigeltfel
22nd Sep 2011, 12:14
For Brits, a comparison might be the Frogs invading and occupying a large part of Kent and half of Sussex

There are over 300,000 French nationals working in London and SE England. They are not armed........yet! :ooh:

parabellum
22nd Sep 2011, 12:18
For Brits, a comparison might be the Frogs invading and occupying a large part of Kent and half of Sussex, with armed settlements in London and Surrey.
Whilst the Frogs can keep their armed settlements in Sarf London, I suspect that the Brits would want the other bits back.



Don't quite get the 'invasion' bit, the Israelites have been there for 3,500 years.

The Palestinians want their state to be recognised within the existing boundries of Israel, maybe that is what 'The Times' is getting at?

corsair
22nd Sep 2011, 12:22
Incompetence is a fair point. But then the Palestinians are not armed and trained by the US of A. The Americans didn't train the Israelis before the Six Day war or the October war or any of the previous wars. On the other hand the Soviets did arm and train all of the surrounding Arab countries. Despite this they defeated them again and again.

Israel with a tiny population held off huge numbers of enemies. It's nothing short of incredible that the country still exists.

As I said before, read the history.

Ancient Observer
22nd Sep 2011, 12:25
Para,
I'm not saying any more on this thread. I begin to sound like my Dad. After being shot at by Germans and Italians, the nice MoD sent him to Palestine to be shot at by Arabs and aspirant Israelis.
You might like to check your history, though, about the 3,500 years bit, and who was where when.
From my vague memory of History, there was a lot of invading, raping and pillaging in that part of the world for most of that time. I'm not sure that any of the invading tribes was that successful or dominant for more than a few hundred years. .

rh200
22nd Sep 2011, 12:31
Incompetence is a fair point. But then the Palestinians are not armed and trained by the US of A.


Yes and imagine how many they could kill if they where.

El Grifo
22nd Sep 2011, 12:53
Good to see this thread holding up and nice to see a bit of restraint for change.

Can I ask opinions on what grounds or on what basis or reason would the US veto such a move ?

lomapaseo
22nd Sep 2011, 13:14
Can I ask opinions on what grounds or on what basis or reason would the US veto such a move ?

The dog you know and hasn't bit you yet is better than the dog you don't know

confusionous

El Grifo
22nd Sep 2011, 14:13
Yes but what bearing does that have on "statehood" ?

Airborne Aircrew
22nd Sep 2011, 14:25
The result is the utter mess we see today, with everyone earnestly believing their version of history.I read a rather interesting article about a year ago that described the most important "combatants" in the question of who was there first, the Palestinians or the Jews. Funnily enough it seems the most important combatants are the archaeologists from both sides. They are each scraping away, ever deeper, trying desperately to locate artifacts deeper and older than those of the other side.

While I suppose a "result" would give one side a huge moral advantage over the other in their argument one wonders if, having found something that did not suit their agenda, some of these scientists might not be tempted to "lose" said artifacts? :=

vulcanised
22nd Sep 2011, 14:33
on what basis or reason would the US veto such a move ?


I bet sheer bloodymindedness is high on the list.

hellsbrink
22nd Sep 2011, 16:28
Can I ask opinions on what grounds or on what basis or reason would the US veto such a move ?

Oh, let's see.

There's the small matter of them wanting statehood but not saying they'll stop all violence against Israel, their lack of committal to fully recognising Israel, their refusal to even come to an agreement with Israel over borders, etc....

But one kicker, in my view, is how someone high up in the Palestinian hierarchy stated, after Obama's speech, that the only solution was more violence. With that sort of attitude, allowing them to be declared as a "state" would only lead to all out war in the region, with various others joining in to try and secure the annihilation of the Jewish State and everyone who lives in it. That is not an option.

El Grifo
22nd Sep 2011, 17:40
With that sort of attitude, allowing them to be declared as a "state" would only lead to all out war in the region

Oh I see ! well we wouldn't want that happening now would we !!!

BarbiesBoyfriend
22nd Sep 2011, 18:19
I don't think that granting Palestine the status of being recognised as a state at the UN would be bring more violence. Quite the contrary.

Anyway, when it comes to smiting, their neighbours are not exactly shy-and it was the UN that granted their statehood.

There are big moves- seismic moves- under way in the ME at the moment.

This is not a ime to be churlish.

Lonewolf_50
22nd Sep 2011, 18:59
Anyway, when it comes to smiting, their neighbours are not exactly shy-and it was the UN that granted their statehood.

True enough, which was followed in short order by war intended to snuff out said UN mandated state.

Does not give me a good feeling about the follow on to the gambit the Palestinian and Arab factions are playing at the moment.

El Grifo
22nd Sep 2011, 19:16
Nevertheless, it is interesting to observe another piece being introduced to the board. The tit-for-tat lying, cheating and manipulating has gone on for far to long.
Eventually something has to change and it don't take rocket science to work out what !!

Lonewolf_50
22nd Sep 2011, 19:20
The tit-for-tat lying, cheating and manipulating has gone on for far to long.
Since about the time of Cain and Abel. :p
Eventually something has to change and it don't take rocket science to work out what !!
Myself not being a rocket scientist ... do you care to elaborate on that?

I suspect that within a month or two, the killing will commence in that region, yet again, and they'll time it to try and ruin Christmas yet again, when yet another UN cease fire line is established.

Good fun for anyone in the active forces.

Not.

El Grifo
22nd Sep 2011, 19:55
As a grown adult you must accept, whatever side of the fence you sit, that the current situation is untenable.

As the human race develops, the case of the perceived underdog increasingly moves to the fore.

Call it compassion or whatever you care to !

BarbiesBoyfriend
22nd Sep 2011, 20:11
Maybe El Grifo has a point.

Years ago, we could ignore the 'situation' and life could carry on as normal.

These days, less so.

The ramifications of the unrest in the Holy Land are beginning to impact us all. We need a settlement.

With the Arab Spring there may be an opportunity to sort out a whole load of 'issues' in the ME.

I think the kneejerk 'veto' stance of the US on this statehood issue is very old-fashioned.

We deserve better.

con-pilot
22nd Sep 2011, 21:45
In a debate about what people were where first, there was period where two Representatives from each side were to give a speech. By the toss of a coin, the delegate from Israel spoke first.

"There is a well know story in the Bible where Moses was leading his people into the promised land when the Israelites ran out of water. Thus the Lord spoke unto Moses to strike a rock with his staff and water would flow froth. Moses did so and a large volume of water flowed forth from the rock.

Now that we all know from the Bible, what happened next is not in the Bible. As the water flowed forth, a large pool of water formed at the foot of the rock. Moses was dirty, so he removed his clothing and got into the pool to bathe. While he was bathing a Palestinian ran up and stole Moses's clothes."

At that point the Palestinian Representative jumped up and angrily said, "That is a Zionist lie, there were no Palestinians there back then!"

The Israeli speaker replied, "Now that we have established who was first, I'll continue."

;)

El Grifo
22nd Sep 2011, 22:11
Like using the "Bible" as a reference is about as much use as using " Viz"

Giggle it :ok:

BarbiesBoyfriend
22nd Sep 2011, 22:12
Con

You do yourself no favours by re-telling that very old yarn.

An end to the old dogma, say I.

It's not working and the rest of us are hurting.

parabellum
22nd Sep 2011, 22:38
It's not working and the rest of us are hurting.


You're not.

No one is prepared to step in with a big stick and hold the warring factions apart indefinitely, which is what it would amount to.

It is easy to say things like, "the present situation is untenable" and " The ramifications of the unrest in the Holy Land are beginning to impact us all. We need a settlement" but remember this, Israel have, on at least three occasions, offered the Palestinians up to 90% of what they asked for and each time the offer has been refused.

For their various reasons the Palestinians and some of their Arab and Iranian supporters are very happy to maintain the status quo going to great lengths to do so, such as making impossible proposals to the UN about Palestinian 'statehood' knowing it will divide the UN exactly as they would wish it.

Ancient Observer - Fair enough, it really depends on who wrote the history in the first place and whose version one choose to believe.

BarbiesBoyfriend
22nd Sep 2011, 22:59
Bandaide. I think you were referring to the Palestinians there, but the other side do much more damage with their US supplied munitions, do they not>

Parabellum.

I am.

The constant agg we've all had to put up with since 9/11 is wearing. Petrol is expensive and CENTCOM have lost and killed thousands in the ME. The conflict in the Holy Land has a part in this. It needs to stop.

Come on! Let's recognise Palestine as a state and start treating them like humans, they're not untermensh.

parabellum
22nd Sep 2011, 23:11
Come on! Let's recognise Palestine as a state and start treating them like humans, they're not untermensh.


As soon as they reach an agreement with Israel but not before, it is up to the Palestinians but they are trying to duck out of their reponsibilities and gain statehood anyway.


but the other side do much more damage with their US supplied munitions, do they not>


3000 rockets from Gaza so far and still counting.

BarbiesBoyfriend
22nd Sep 2011, 23:17
Para.

Happy to debate this, but comparing 3000 rockets with, for example many millions of Cluster bomblets and/ or Operation CAST LEAD is just silly. The Palestinians mostly use rocks.

A wise man (in the Army, as I was) once told me that behind every insurgency there was a legitimate grievance.

So far, he was right.

Andu
22nd Sep 2011, 23:23
Myself, I think the Italians are the ones who are doing everything they possibly can to make sure the current awful situation in Israel/Palestine continues ad infinitum. :)

Before everyone blows a gasket in released indignation, allow me explain that such an outrageous statement has a basis in fact, for if the two warring factions in that part of the world could get their act together and co-operate, given the history of that area, (a history very, very important to three major religions), Jerusalem and the area around it would become an absolutely huge - and I mean HUGE - tourist attraction for people from all over the world from all three religions/cultures that, for Christians at least, would see Rome shuffled off into relative obscurity.

A major stumbling block for peace with the Palestinians is what I'll call "the Che Guevara factor" (my creation). To explain: many if not most of the Palestinian leadership, (just like Che Guevara after Fidel Castro's victory in Cuba), would be superfluous to requirements, with their only skills no longer required. They are, almost to a man, war leaders, whose only excuse to be in the positions of power they cling to is the continued unrest. If they were asked to govern a civilian (and just as important - a civil) society where they'd have to produce results and answer to voters for their political and administrative shortcomings, like Guevara, they'd fall on their proverbial arses and be voted out in favour of people who can deliver the goods. And what would become of them then?

The positions of power they occupy today in Palestinian society are not unlike those of 1920s Chicago Mafia dons, but because of "the war of liberation", they can sell themselves to their public (and an all too compliant Western Left) as "freedom fighters" rather than what all too many of them really are.

Without the war against the Zionist Entity, what will they be? Some might answer "gangsters", and I for one would say that that would not be a too inaccurate description of them.

Those who might feel the overwhelming urge to lambaste me for making such a politically incorrect comment might like to take a moment to look at the careers of many ex-KGB officers after the collapse of the Soviet Union before doing so.

11Fan
22nd Sep 2011, 23:26
One wonders if it is possible to be Pro-Palestine yet not Anti-Israel.

There seems to be a fine line between the two.


Side note: And I am impressed as well that this thread has remained civil.

rh200
22nd Sep 2011, 23:35
You do yourself no favours by re-telling that very old yarn.Actually I hadn't heard that before, cracked me up, thanks con!

Some one wants to know the reason behind the veto, well there's probally no one reason, just like many other decisions in politics.

Its a simple thing, you go back to the old ways, Ie let them fight it out, and I don't mean the panzy @arse stuff they've been doing for the last few decades, where talking all out war here, biblical proportions, one all out winner millions dead.

Or

We play tiddly winks and hold out for as long as we can until we stumble onto a political solution. effectively one side gives in and makes some sacrifices. It will only work if the majority on both sides are going to give quarter, if that doesn't happen then the extremist in either side will stir trouble.

At the moment the biggest issue is the mullahs and the belief in Jihad, their fighting a war of attrition. You need to take away any hope whatsoever that they can achieve their aims. Once you do that, you may get progress and Israel can move against their own extremists.

G-AWZK
22nd Sep 2011, 23:48
With all the calls for reviewing history, maybe if you ignore the absurd biblical claims, and focus on the actions of Lehi, the Stern Gang and Irgun, you will get a much more realistic picture of the creation of modern Israel.

Revisionist Zionism stated that the establishment of a Zionist state in Palestine was impossible without violence and the forcible transfer of the indigenous population. The Zionist state could only be established “in blood and fire”.

Their barbaric acts of terrorism torture and violence against Jews, British servicemen and UN representatives make Band Aides comments seem unbelievably ironic and/or naeive.

It is also important to remember that there is big difference between zionism and Judaism.

G-AWZK
23rd Sep 2011, 00:31
Are you saying that what happened 60 years ago is not relevant?

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 00:32
rh 200.
Play up! Yours is the attitude that got all the players into the current impasse and yours the attitude that will keep them there.

Enless war is no fun.

Have you served?

parabellum
23rd Sep 2011, 00:50
Happy to debate this, but comparing 3000 rockets with, for example many millions of Cluster bomblets and/ or Operation CAST LEAD is just silly. The Palestinians mostly use rocks.




I'm comparing 3000 rockets fired into civilian parts of Israel with bombs and rockets fired by the IAF at known Hezbollah and HAMAS targets and yes, when the ground troops go in to route out the terrorists the locals do mainly throw rocks at them, agreed, whilst the terrorists hide behind the skirts and prams of their womenfolk, Hezbollah particularly but not exclusively.

(Yes I have served too, in the Army, Aden for one.)

G-AWZK
23rd Sep 2011, 01:05
What is the death toll from these rockets Bandy? I think you will find that more people are injured and killed in the UK on the 5th of November. It is like throwing rocks against a tank.

You ask for examples of Israeli atrocities well how about the use of White Phosphor against civilians? The bulldozing of houses with women and children inside? The bombing of UN schools being used as refugee centres ? The shelling of a house that Israeli soldiers had directed civilians to as a safe refuge?

How many more do you want?

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 01:16
para.

I take your point.

In your opinion, how do the very badly aimed, home made rockets fired by the Palestinians-which have killed a few Israelis, compare with...


The utterly devastating attacks on the Palestinians, using M60s, F-16s and lots of hitty-bangy things?

The world sees it, and the worlds patience is running out.

Your bank of sympathy, on which you are forever drawing, runneth low.

:uhoh:
Don't worry. There's time yet to pursue the never ending non-peace.

But, eventually, we'll tire.

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 01:37
We need to cool down before it gets to heated

Enless war is no fun.
Didn't say it was, just gave the options as I see it. If things where easy it would be all over, but its not. Every thing we do is because of political compromises, that is the a fact of life

Have you served?No. My statements are just along the belief that war is a disgusting thing, that unfortunitly is sometime needed in the view of what ever party's are involved. A Long that line you fight it to win and win permently, if you can't do that then don't do it at all. This is where the politics comes into play, the response is moderated by politics and perceived effect on on your outside support. This means we end up getting a never ending tit for tat, death by a thousand cuts if you will.

The utterly devastating attacks on the Palestinians, using M60s, F-16s and lots of hitty-bangy things?
Be fair, you know very well the Israeli's try and target legitimate ones the best they can, apart from the occasional stuff up. I used to watch the retaliation measures that the Israeli's did after a suicide attack. something along the lines " X killed on a bus y children z women etc, response Israel takes out a police station which was evacuated an hour before"

We could go around for hours throwing examples back and forth, but I suspect its been done more times than anyone on PPRUNE cares to remember. If you have a view on the situation its very unlikely anyone is going to change your mind about it on this website. Now think about how passionate you feel about it and wonder how passionate the people on the ground feel and you will understand why the issue is so hard to solve in practise

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 01:45
rh 200.

Re this thread. I agree with your sentiments about 'cooling it'.

Your last para, I find that to be removed from reality.

Anyways, I shal excuse myself from the debate now by going to sleep with my lovely wife.

Maybe peace will have broken out by morning.:)

pigboat
23rd Sep 2011, 02:39
Their barbaric acts of terrorism torture and violence against Jews, British servicemen and UN representatives make Band Aides comments seem unbelievably ironic and/or naeive.


Naw mate, this is ironic. Writ large.

..the Holy Land..

Load Toad
23rd Sep 2011, 06:13
I think they need a big group hug & some BFF bracelets.

etrang
23rd Sep 2011, 06:30
I'm comparing 3000 rockets fired into civilian parts of Israel with bombs and rockets fired by the IAF at known Hezbollah and HAMAS targets

Those 3,000 rockets mostly blow up sand. If the US would give the Palestinians accurate guidance systems I think they'd be happy to aim their rockets at the IDF and Israeli government.

rh200
23rd Sep 2011, 06:41
Those 3,000 rockets mostly blow up sand. If the US would give the Palestinians accurate guidance systems I think they'd be happy to aim their rockets at the IDF and Israeli government

Whilst I could be sort convinced the average Palestinian might do that, Hama's most likely wouldn't. Who ever's side you are on has an agenda, and they will attack whatever target furthers that agenda and long term goal. Hamas does not want peace with Israel, hence fighting a "fair war" is not in their interests.

parabellum
23rd Sep 2011, 07:27
Those 3,000 rockets mostly blow up sand.


Oh! So thats all right then.:rolleyes:

Only recently they shot one straight into the side of school bus! Brave people those Hamas.

(Now that the border with Egypt is open it is possible for all manner of sophisticated weaponry to get into Gaza).

RedhillPhil
23rd Sep 2011, 08:34
I'm puzzled. So if Palestine is awarded statehood, where exactly will the country be in relationship to Israel? Are parts of that country going to be annexed and called "Palestine" or what. Sorry, I tend to be a bit dim about these things and geography is not always my strong point.

ORAC
23rd Sep 2011, 09:07
how do the very badly aimed, home made rockets fired by the Palestinians......

If the US would give the Palestinians accurate guidance systems I think they'd be happy to aim their rockets at the IDF and Israeli government. I believe that's the job of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And I don't think they're intending to discriminate on their targets.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards train new Hamas (http://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/iranian-revolutionary-guards-train-new-hamas-commando-brigade-in-gaza/)

Nigeria Intercepts 13 Iran Missile Containers Possibly Destined for Gaza (http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1867/nigeria-intercepts-13-iran-missile-containers)

Iran 'steals surface-to-air missiles from Libya' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8782103/Iran-steals-surface-to-air-missiles-from-Libya.html)

Iran smuggled hundreds of rockets to Gaza in 2010 (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=201611)

Solid Rust Twotter
23rd Sep 2011, 09:41
A major stumbling block for peace with the Palestinians is what I'll call "the Che Guevara factor" (my creation). To explain: many if not most of the Palestinian leadership, (just like Che Guevara after Fidel Castro's victory in Cuba), would be superfluous to requirements, with their only skills no longer required. They are, almost to a man, war leaders, whose only excuse to be in the positions of power they cling to is the continued unrest. If they were asked to govern a civilian (and just as important - a civil) society where they'd have to produce results and answer to voters for their political and administrative shortcomings, like Guevara, they'd fall on their proverbial arses and be voted out in favour of people who can deliver the goods. And what would become of them then?

Hardly likely. Didn't happen in SA and unlikely to ever happen. Despite blatant incompetence and corruption, the old mlungu bogey man gets dragged out from under the bed just before every election, dusted off and used to whip up the masses to convince them to keep the ruling regime with their snouts in the trough.

In the case of a new state, they can only look forward to years of corruption, incompetence and venality if the current leaders are asked to run a country not at war. Should they turn out anything like our lot, it will come about that it was never about liberation, rather about access to government coffers and influence.

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 16:27
Still going on day three.

Does anyone know how they got on at the UN today?

con-pilot
23rd Sep 2011, 16:33
Does anyone know how they got on at the UN today?

I think they are still trying to recover from Armydinnerjacket's speech yesterday, when 30 countries walked out on him during his speech, well if you want to call it a speech.

Lonewolf_50
23rd Sep 2011, 18:11
To quote Dan Dierdorf: Let 'em play.

As I see it, once Israel is dealing with an allegedly sovereign state, their justification for embargo goes up, not down, since they are no longer in "caretaker status" of any of that territory.

All that does is makes the road ahead for the Palestinians tougher than presently.

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 18:14
Did they put their statehood proposition forward, or not?

I'd thought the voting and vetoing would be today, but plainly not.

El Grifo
23rd Sep 2011, 18:26
Good speech by Netanyahu. Missed out a lot of the actuality, but a good bit of oratory nevertheless !

Lonewolf_50
23rd Sep 2011, 18:53
The veto power is related to this marvelous concept called "checks and balances." It was necessary to get the right folks to sign up, rather than things devolving back to their usual regional state.

I note your groaning over it, but you might be interested to know that
US
Russia
China
France
UK

all have veto power. There is no point in having it if you don't now and again use it. That said, I am not sure I agree with using it on behallf of another nation's security interest, if one is the US ...

Do any of the folk across the pond understand why checks and balances are a worthwhile feature in a governmental style organization?

One would think you'd have cottoned on to that ...

El Grifo
23rd Sep 2011, 18:57
Missed the Abbas speech. Sure to find it somwhere on t'internet.

I want to see it in full though, none of that selectively edited highlight, wool over the eyes rubbish !

Lyman
23rd Sep 2011, 18:59
Grousing while covetous of the NAY, are we?

Is it a 'State' of mind?

Frankly, the creation of Palestine will happen because of Israel, not in spite of it, and with their help.

Funny how, once named, terrorism becomes "primacy". Sew the Flag, and let's move along......

ORAC
23rd Sep 2011, 19:00
the ridiculous power of veto continues to exist Required at local, national and international level...

Tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 19:00
All that does is makes the road ahead for the Palestinians tougher than presently.

But brings in exactly what I said earlier.


You want "all out war" over there, with Israel against Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran and God knows who else, instead of the "terrorist war" we have now, then allowing the *Palestinians* their own state is a good idea.

I hate to say it, but Obama was right. They have to figure out where the borders are first.

Then, and I'll take it further, they have to stop ALL attacks on Israeli soil AND renounce "the struggle for the state of Palestine". They have to acknowledge the fact that Israel exists and always will, and will not attack it in any way.


I don't see Abbas saying that, I don't see anyone who claims to be acting on behalf of the *Palestinians* saying that. Therefore the petition to the UN should be dismissed as fast as one saying Texas is not a part of the USA.

Let's see them prove their intentions for being a "State", let's see them earn "Statehood". Let's see them renounce the violence, let's see 2 years without a single rocket being fired. Let's see them enter SERIOUS negotiations with Israel. Then we'll see that they are being serious about being a responsible country and not a bunch of arseholes with an agenda.....

Lyman
23rd Sep 2011, 19:02
hells.....:D

That's the plot, one hopes.

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 19:11
Do any of the folk across the pond understand why checks and balances are a worthwhile feature in a governmental style organization?

One would think you'd have cottoned on to that ...

Oh, there's a hell of a long list of vetos from China and Russia in recent years.



Why do you think that the initial attacks against Serbia were a NATO one? Why is the current operation in Libya is a NATO one? Why do you think the Russkies and the Chinese went ape over Gulf War pt2 (as well as the Ffrench)? We'll just leave Zim out of this too









The UN has failed miserably as far as the reasons it was created go. It has, arguably, caused more death than it's "peacekeeping" efforts have saved. It should be put to sleep at the soonest opportunity, and, like it's predecessor the "League of Nations", be buried forever.

It now serves no real purpose apart from keeping a miniscule minority in the luxury they think they deserve. It's time it died a painful death, like so many people it claimed it was "protecting".

vulcanised
23rd Sep 2011, 19:55
Hellsbrink, you say in #88 that the Palestinians should agree to behave in a peaceful manner for as long as it takes.

That's unusual naivety from you considering the several occasions when Israel has quite arbitrarily taken action against them, not to mention some of the extremely disproportionate reprisals.

I wouldn't trust Israel for five minutes.

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 20:00
hellsbrink
I note you don't mention anything Israel should do to demonstrate that it is "SERIOUS" about negotiations.
Perhaps stop building what even the US concedes are settlements in East Jerusalem?

I note you ignore all previous "negotiations" when the *Palestinians* (y'all will figure that one out eventually) have been offered up to 100% of what they wanted, but they rejected it. Even the more recent "negotiations" have offered the *Palestinians* 90% of what they wanted (seriously, check the details out) but ONE side went "up yours".

Only ONE side attacks, one side retaliates. But the "one" are the bad bastards, the "ONE" are the repressed........ Only "ONE" side refuses to come to an agreement, only "ONE" side wishes statehood without the responsibilities that go with it.

Do the maths regarding what I am saying, then you can turn round and say I am wrong.

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 20:02
That's unusual naivety from you considering the several occasions when Israel has quite arbitrarily taken action against them, not to mention some of the extremely disproportionate reprisals.

I wouldn't trust Israel for five minutes.

List these incidents.




Go on, I dare you. Try to prove your point.

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 20:17
And the "Arab States" will not do that..........



So the circle is complete

Airborne Aircrew
23rd Sep 2011, 20:26
So the circle is complete

Magic... We have a new Hamster Wheel... :D

Lonewolf_50
23rd Sep 2011, 20:39
Allowing just one permanent member of the SC to veto a Resolution even if it is agreed by the General Assembly, by all the other 14 SC members, including all the other 4 permanent members, is absurd.


No, it is not absurd just because you say so. I think you may wish to revisit and understand what a check and a balance is. It isn't all to do with bicameral legislatures, for one.

The point of the check is to prevent a railroad job.

Please also see NATO's requirement for unanimous votes for, rather than consensus, for certain actions. (The infamous silence procedure). When dealing in coalition style actions, where decisions taken have global and profound long term effects, it is better that a dissenting voice force the issue to be revisited than the majority (right or wrong) steamrolling ahead.

Decisions at the political level are darned hard to undo.

While both NATO and UNSC have often frustrated me with their endless deliberative styles, and seeming paralysis via analysis, it is better that they rarely reach a decision that everyone can live with than make decisions that everyone can't or won't live with.

The momentum of bad ideas gets a lot of people killed. I would think that any European (which regionally includes those on "perfidious Albion") ought to understand that, at a profound level, even if you only look at the last 200 years of decision making on that continent.

That said, I will agree 100% with a Palestinian sovereign state the morning after Iran, Iraq and Turkey agree on a sovereign Kurdish state's existence.

Call me when that happens. (Heh, no vetoes in sight for that one at UNSC, eh? :E )

I do not see any justification for the Palestinian Arabs having a greater special victim status than the Kurds.

Do you?

I wonder how many of those 43 US vetoes were over Israeli issues. I suppose I could look it up in the UNSC minutes. I am sure Mersheimer and Walts have a word or two on that as well. :p

Should the US use that veto for somebody else's national interests? Maybe, maybe not.
That does not mean that the veto ought to be retired.

Leave it in place.

Argue for a given veto, or against it, and its merits or lack there of all you like, with the interests of parties considered.

Your throw the baby out with the bathwater position is not just naive, it misses the point of why the veto is there in the first place.

hellsbrink
23rd Sep 2011, 20:43
Really?
Please can you point me to the hell of a long list.

I can only find the stats for 1984-2007 -


China RoC/PRC: 3
France: 3
Russia/USSR: 4
UK: 10
United States 43.


list the reasons for these vetoes.

And a link to your "stats", because that source could be "interesting".

Go on, do it.

Tankertrashnav
23rd Sep 2011, 20:46
Magic... We have a new Hamster Wheel... :D

I refer the honourable gentleman to my comment at post #2

Can't say I've seen anything original on here - it has all been said ad nauseam years ago.

Airborne Aircrew
23rd Sep 2011, 20:48
HEY!!!! Less of the "honourable:... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

You'll get me a bad name... ;)

Tankertrashnav
23rd Sep 2011, 20:53
AA - I'm sure you are as 'honourable' as any of the 650 MPs at Westmister, whence the expression comes.

Mind you, that's not saying much ;)

Airborne Aircrew
23rd Sep 2011, 20:57
Phew... Thanks... I have a reputation to keep up you know... :}

Lonewolf_50
23rd Sep 2011, 20:59
If you make an acronym out of Honourable Airborne Aircrew, you get

HAA

That makes me grin. :E

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 21:00
Gentlemen. Ladies?

Lets keep this thread on target and not let it degenerate into a general discussion on the 'situation' in Israel/ Palestine.

This thread is about the legitamacy, or not, of Palestines' attempt to be recognised as a state at the UN.

Mainly.;)

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Sep 2011, 22:18
Listening to the news this evening, the main thrust behind those 'against' the concept of statehood for the Palestinians was that they really needed to negotiate with Israel.

I can't see how that would ever work.

Surely the whole point of going direct to the UN is to outflank Israel?

If they rely on Tel aviv to help them out........gonna be a long wait!

parabellum
23rd Sep 2011, 22:57
I believe the original idea of the veto was to stop groups with a vested interest or hidden agenda from driving through bad law that wasn't for the benefit of the majority and worse, could have delivered mayhem to some minorities. The theory was that certain 'Elder States', which were big enough and powerful enough to see the 'big picture', would act as a check and balance on bad , inappropriate, basically unfair and discriminatory legislation.

When countries like Libya can finish up leading the Human Rights faculty of the UN then clearly the system is stuffed and needs close scrutiny, personally, I think the veto is a good idea and should stay.

Andu
23rd Sep 2011, 23:41
The primary purpose of the UN, for some years now, has been to provide a First World lifestyle (and pay packet) for an inner circle of Third World ex-politicians and allow such people to live the high life in New York rather then in their own all too often failed states.

The rest of us pay an awful lot of money supporting this behemoth so these oxygen thieves can park their cars illegally in Lower Manhattan without being fined.

I can't help but think that moving UN Headquarters to some hell hole in equatorial Africa with a stipulation that housing and facilities NOT be improved for the UN representatives over what the local people enjoy would improve the UN's output immeasurably.

BarbiesBoyfriend
24th Sep 2011, 01:18
Andu.

Put the HQ where you like. It wont make much difference.

The UN is all about fairness.

The whole US/ Israel thing is about big Jewish money (in the US), influence by the very powerful Israel lobby, and utter lack of fairness.

It can go on for a while yet, but sooner or later.....

parabellum
24th Sep 2011, 01:32
and utter lack of fairness


Having been offered up to 90% of what the Palestinians asked for, on three occasions, (and 100% on one occasion, it has been said), don't see where the 'unfairness' comes in, just how many bites of the cherry do the Palestinians want or do they really think they can take the lot?

The combined wealth of the Arab nations and Iran, that support the Palestinian cause, will exceed the wealth of the Jewish lobby in the USA by a quantum amount. The often perpetrated image that the Palestinians are a poor downtrodden people because of Israel is a myth created by themselves. The Palestinians have received billions in aid officially and undisclosed amounts from their neighbours, they are a totally corrupt society who know how to play on public sympathy.

Fubaar
24th Sep 2011, 01:34
The UN is all about fairness. Ken, Ken, Ken... -(as Barbie's boyfriend, I'm assuming that's your name) - from that eye-popping comment, (especially your fourth line), I can only assume you're still at university, if not as a student, then as a lecturer.

Let me guess.... Liberal Arts?

'Fairness' and 'the UN' in the same sentence? Tell me you know you are kidding.

The UN HQ in New York is a pigs' trough, straight out of 'Animal Farm', with all that that implies. Saudi Arabia chairing the UN committee for women's rights. Enough said.

BarbiesBoyfriend
24th Sep 2011, 01:45
'Fairness?'

I think the US is very partisan-for whatever reason- re Israel. That's unfair.

I think the UN, would have straightened the whole deal out years ago, but for vested interests, principally among those who hold a veto.

The base hypocrisy is there for all to see.

You can hardly blame the Palestinians for opposing Israel.

Had it happened anywhere else, the US would label them Freedom Fighters and start bombing their opponents.

The UN know which way is up. Have no doubt about that.

And so do the Countries that vote at the UN.

(not a graduate, thank goodness :))

Load Toad
24th Sep 2011, 01:59
^ a b Global Policy Forum (2008): "Changing Patterns in the Use of the Veto in the Security Council". Retrieved 30 December 2008.

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#cite_note-GlobalPolicyForum-9)

rh200
24th Sep 2011, 02:16
Unless and until the veto power is abolished, I agreeWon't happen, they would just veto such a move.:p
Do you really think the big five are ever going to let themselves be at the mercy of the smaller nations, like Tonga etc etc.

This thread is about the legitamacy, or not, of Palestines' attempt to be recognised as a state at the UN.And that's fair enough.

To be recognised as a state in theory you should be able to demonstrate that they can act like a state. Their adherence to a couple of things is the main sticking point. One the destruction of Israel, I mean why would you possible reward with statehood and bring into existance something that goes against one of the very reasons the UN exists for.

That said there's lot of country,s that should thank their stars that they can't have statehood taken off them.

PukinDog
24th Sep 2011, 02:47
I'm a strong supporter of abolishing veto power held by the UN's major players because the moment they lose it they'll begin to pull out and when they do, quicker than you can say "Rwanda"......

Voila! No more UN.

Andu
24th Sep 2011, 02:48
Interesting that Abbas said in his speech that "Israel has been occupying Palestine for 63 years."

The Israelis were quick to point out that they have occupied the West Bank only since 1967, so in saying that the Israelis have been occupying "Palestine" since 1948, the Palestinians are in fact claiming all of Israel.

Tankertrashnav
24th Sep 2011, 08:59
Saudi Arabia chairing the UN committee for women's rights. Enough said

You're kidding Fuubar - right?

Andu
24th Sep 2011, 09:15
I don't think he is, TankerTrashnav. I seem to recall that North Korea and (Ghadaffi's) Libya were on the UN Human Rights Committee and Saudi Arabia (and Pakistan?) were on some committee involving women's rights.

That's business as usual in the UN and neither selection would even raise a UN insider's eyebrow.

Google is your friend. Here we go: Saudi Arabia's spot on the board of UN Women a sad joke - thestar.com (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/890485--saudi-arabia-s-spot-on-the-board-of-un-women-a-sad-joke)

NEW YORK—It took years to make the United Nations' newest agency, UN Women, a reality, and then just one day to effectively kill it.

Death was effected by allowing onto its board a kingdom where women are not just infamously prohibited from driving but are also virtual minors who need a male guardian's permission to travel and to have surgery — and must be covered from head to toe in public.

As one of two countries guaranteed seats as emerging donor nations, Saudi Arabia essentially bought its way onto the board of UN Women, which is dedicated to gender equality around the world.

Just three days after securing an automatic seat, Saudi Arabia gave us a reminder of just how oxymoronic its place on UN Women is, when its team showed up at the Asian Games in China without a single woman among the 180-strong delegation.

rh200
24th Sep 2011, 09:57
The UN would have to the biggest joke in the history of mankind, either that or you would cry.

In the words of a particular polly about the recession we had to have, so is the UN, its nowhere near perfect, but its all we have.

It will remain a sad pathetic excuse for an organization for the forseable future. It may come into its own one day, but don't see it happening, we'll get another world war first.

Capetonian
24th Sep 2011, 10:09
I can't help but think that moving UN Headquarters to some hell hole in equatorial Africa with a stipulation that housing and facilities NOT be improved for the UN representatives over what the local people enjoy would improve the UN's output immeasurably.

That is the best suggestion I've seen for a long time. I'd add to that, moving the EU HQ to some hellhole like Chisinau in Moldavia or Ploesti in Romania, under the same conditions. Suddenly the fat bloated passengers on the UN and EU gravy trains will desert the stinking ships and maybe things will start to work as staus quo is restored through natural forces.

BarbiesBoyfriend
24th Sep 2011, 10:24
I think people who complain about the UN are those who hold some partisan point of view that is not as widely supported as they wish it was.

The USs' very one sided view on the situation in the Holy land is a perfect example.

The UN simply reflects the fact that much of the world don't agree with Uncle Sam on this one.

Andu
24th Sep 2011, 12:08
(Ken), with the greatest respect, you and I live on two different planets.

parabellum
24th Sep 2011, 13:01
The USs' very one sided view on the situation in the Holy land is a perfect example.

The UN simply reflects the fact that much of the world don't agree with Uncle Sam on this one.


You must share with us whatever it is you are smoking, clearly powerful stuff!

rh200
24th Sep 2011, 13:28
Palestinians Mull Giving Israel Full Control Of West Bank | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/23/palestinians-mull-giving-israel-full-control-west-bank/?test=latestnews)

See I actually respect this sort of aproach, some serious out of the box thinking. If done on a large scale it would of course be undermined by hamas, nothing like a good suicide bomb. After all one can't have the old Jihad theory being undermined.

Solid Rust Twotter
24th Sep 2011, 14:02
Zimbabwe also occupied a seat on the Human Rights Commission at the height of Mad Bob's excesses as I recall.

Having done work for the UN world wide in a number of trouble spots, all I can say is I wouldn't trust them to sit the right way round on the toilet.

BarbiesBoyfriend
24th Sep 2011, 21:37
The UN's not perfect but I think that it IS well intentioned and let's face it, it's all we've got.

As far a the 'statehood' issue goes, I really don't see a huge gain for the Palestinians should they get it.
Neither would it be a great loss for Israel.

So why the fuss?

lomapaseo
25th Sep 2011, 00:14
So why the fuss?

Wait til you see the treaties, alliances, armanents and then worry.

heated ice detector
25th Sep 2011, 01:36
Didn't take long before another stone thrower was shot dead. Within 24 hrs.
would there not be an international law regarding shooting of non military armed demonstrators

lomapaseo
25th Sep 2011, 02:55
would there not be an international law regarding shooting of non military armed demonstrators

I believe they are called terroists under the laws

parabellum
25th Sep 2011, 04:55
demonstrators


Stretching it a bit to call them 'demonstrators', they turn up armed with slings and catapults to hurl rocks at the Israeli troops, a hit on the head with such a slung or catapulted rock could be lethal.

Been a while since I was involved in anti terrorist Internal Security Patrols and the Israelis may not follow the same procedure but we had to give several audio and visual warnings, if the rioters didn't stop throwing projectiles and disperse then a marksman would be ordered to shoot the obvious ring-leader.

heated ice detector
25th Sep 2011, 05:33
Oh they were terrorists, forgive me, that makes it OK then.
At least the latest casualty was in his early twenty's, as opposed to some of the previous shot stone throwers who were often under sixteen.
Maybe there is an IDF medal for it, they must be a very proud army.

our001
25th Sep 2011, 06:17
Personally Peace in the middle east is a big dream of mine, however I do not expect to see it in my lifetime.
My mother was a holocaust survivor, my parents fought in the War of Independence and I served my time in the Israeli army.
The hurt and hate on both sides is deep, I have lost count of the family and friends who are dead due to anti semetic hate.
I am sure there are Palestinians who have similar experiences to mine.
If there was no more aggression from Palestine, Isreal would maintain the peace.
The big question is will this happen????
Will the Arab world allow the Jewish state to survive????
Or do we continue to sacrifice our people (on both sides) ad infinitum????

parabellum
25th Sep 2011, 06:26
The Israeli borders are no place for libertarian huggy fluffies Heated Ice Detector, doesn't sound as though you have ever faced a violent, rioting mob throwing rocks and anything else they can find at you either. Get out there and give it a try, might change your mind, certainly knock the sarcasm out of you, if nothing else.

heated ice detector
25th Sep 2011, 08:37
When they start putting telescopic sights on their sling shots I would agree with you.

Ancient Observer
25th Sep 2011, 12:22
Oh, and I thought.....

What on Earth is a "terrorist" in the Israel vs Arabs debate in the Middle east?

My dad knew he was a terrorist when the MoD sent him there immediately after the 2nd WW.
.........he knew he was a terrorist as both the Arab death squads and the aspirant Israeli death squads told him he was a terrorist.

The "winners" write the history. .....I sit here humming "It's the poor that get the blame".

radeng
25th Sep 2011, 14:08
Were not the bombers of the King David Hotel terrorists?

Lyman
25th Sep 2011, 19:11
Though 'they' may wish it, Statehood for the Palestinians will not happen.

The purpose of the presence of the refugees is to provide a constant and chronic cover for those who would destroy Israel. They play much better as victims, and as an excuse to teach Hatred to the children.

Lex Talionis
25th Sep 2011, 23:48
Whenever you put religion into any debate you will never have an acceptable solution to all parties.

Add to that money (oil and that means support/interference from other countries wanting that oil) as well as history,different cultures and military action dating back to nearly the beginning of recorded history and I doubt we will ever see peace.

What I would like to know is why any Palestinian activists have not asked for their land back from Jordan?

Any solution with a re-drawing of the boundries of Israel,Jordan and the west bank will never be agreed to by all the participants.This would require a lot of people to be re settled and that will never be agreed to by any side.
Simple in concept but not in the real world unfortunately.

Sadly,like Northern Ireland,the Balkans and many other parts of the world where a political/religious line has been drawn on some map peace is just a fantasy and violence is always simmering just below the surface.

Mike X
26th Sep 2011, 00:04
Didn't want to get involved here, but...

I have many Jewish friends. As they have pointed out, Israeli's are different.

From the perspective on the ground, the Palestinians are akin to the blacks in my country - lazy - it must fall from the sky or grow on a tree.

In my country, stop at the road side and offer simple work to those sitting there and they try to bargain with you (offering above par). One drives away.

lomapaseo
26th Sep 2011, 00:10
Mike X



Didn't want to get involved here, but...

I have many Jewish friends. As they have pointed out, Israeli's are different.

From the perspective on the ground, the Palestinians are akin to the blacks in my country - lazy - it must fall from the sky or grow on a tree.

In my country, stop at the road side and offer simple work to those sitting there and they try to bargain with you (offering above par). One drives away.


So just where is your country, Far east? Mid East?, outer Mongolia ?

Mike X
26th Sep 2011, 00:16
So just where is your country, Far east? Mid East?, outer Mongolia ?

South Africa, my china !

Lyman
26th Sep 2011, 01:24
Shall we have do-overs? How's about pre-1916?

Lonewolf_50
26th Sep 2011, 13:58
Heliport
Feel free to assume that if I understood the issues I'd agree with your opinions.
Nothing like that.
If one hasn't a grip on why that feature was included, one's arguments against may not hold water. But more to the point, without veto power, no UN. It would not exist, as the major powers would not participate in an organization that can act against their interests via mob rule.

Doesn't mean you'll ever agree with me, nor want to.

FWIW, do you want to support political lynch mob style actions in the UN? The UNSC?
I don't.
The veto is a curb on that sort of thing. (But not the only one).

Here's a veto that never happened, and I've often wondered why.

The Russians/Soviets, in 1991, on the UN endorsed action to take Kuwait back from Iraq. Could have been vetoed, leaving Bush Sr with no small amount of egg upon his face. My suspicion is a lot of "back room" deal making went on to get an abstention on that one.

As to other UN issues, see point below.
Your cherry picked time frame, in attempt to make a point, seems to me to ignore the context: In your defense, "post 1989" might be a useful breaking point, as the Cold War was in fast thaw, and the numbers would not change much.

Thanks for the friendly back and forth. :) Cheers.

BBF:
The UN is all about fairness.
I think you might want to go back to its founding, discover why it exists, and look at the structure itself. (Granted, its purpose has evolved a bit over time, or mutated: call it whichever you prefer).
Fair don't enter into it.
Not all members are equal, for one.

The whole US/ Israel thing is about big Jewish money (in the US), influence by the very powerful Israel lobby, and utter lack of fairness.
Fair? Politics isn't a fair game. It's about power.

Load Toad: thanks for the link!


Almost half the vetoes in the history of the Security Council were cast by the Soviet Union, with the vast majority of those being before 1965. Since using its first veto in 1946, Russia has been the most frequent user of the veto.

Russia/the Soviet Union has used the veto on 123 occasions, more than any other of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Caveat: with the end of the Cold War, they haven't been as active.

Heliport
26th Sep 2011, 19:11
Lonewolf_50 If one hasn't a grip on why that feature was included, one's arguments against may not hold water.I agree. The mistake you are making is assuming I don't have a grip on why that feature was included in the UN Charter. I do. The idea wasn't new. When the League of Nations was formed in 1920, each member of the Council had a veto.

The very existence of the SC is a curb.
I wouldn't object as strongly if it wasn't a single veto system.

Your use of the term 'mob rule' is deliberately pejorative. If just one permanent member disagrees with the view of all the 14 other members of the SC (incl all the other permanent members), does that make the majority (incl all the other permanent members) a 'mob' in your opinion? :confused:

Your cherry picked time frame, in attempt to make a point, seems to me to ignore the context: In your defense, "post 1989" might be a useful breaking point, as the Cold War was in fast thaw, and the numbers would not change much.
I didn't cherry pick the time frame; the stats I found via a quick Google happened to be for that period. If you can find the complete list from the beginning, please post it.

Russia/the Soviet Union has used the veto on 123 occasions, more than any other of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
True, but about 80 of those were in the first 10 years of the UN and about 20 in the second 10 years. ie More than 100 of the 123 were before 1965. (They constantly vetoed new bids for membership in a 'tit for tat' because America refused to admit the Soviet republics.)
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has rarely used its veto.

In stark contrast, America continues to actively use its veto - not only more often than any other of the five permanent members but also (from memory) more often than all of the other permanent members combined.

H.

Lyman
26th Sep 2011, 19:25
The United Nations, shall we improve its efficiency?

One cannot polish a turd.

rh200
26th Sep 2011, 23:08
One cannot polish a turd.

But we don't really want to flush it, do we?

Lyman
26th Sep 2011, 23:18
It makes possible scummy tyrants and their genocidal excursions, it starves millions, protects those who wage War on Innocents, etc. etc.

It enriches scumbags whose only purpose is to make life miserable for those who would be free.

It puts in charge of Human rights...........Libya.

They potentiate and prolong Wars of aggression, see to it vast riches are squandered, and make moronic misanthropes proud of themselves for the effort.

And they don't pay their rent, or their parking tickets.

And they make liars of those who believe in an honest process. They are for sale, falling in love with themselves daily, as they pass resolution after meaningless resolution.

They offer venue to Evil.

Other than that, they're not all that bad.

rh200
27th Sep 2011, 01:09
Whilst at heart I agree with the view that the UN is a $%^# and it would be better off being closed, the head does not agree. I'm just not sure the alternative is any better, and frankly could be a lot worse.:(

Bronx
27th Sep 2011, 01:22
The OP asked So, according to the US, Palestine can't be a state unless they can somehow talk Israel into saying they can be a state.

Perhaps some wise owl will explain how what seems to be crass hypocrisy on the part of the US, actually isn't?

Of course Palestine should be a state.

If Israel said Yes the US would say Yes.
The US won't do anything Israel doesn't like.
Wrong IMHO but thats how it is.

rh200
27th Sep 2011, 02:35
Also, I didn't see any Israelis jumping for joy at the events of 9/11. I saw Palestinians and their silly ululating and dancing in the streets thoughYes one of the unfortunate enduring memorys I have. Ranks along another when I was a young lad when the first shuttle blew up. It was just after night shift and I was sitting next a Turkish bloke in the TV room watching the morning news.

It came on the telly and I was in a bit of shock, this guy jumped up screaming in joy and shouting abuse at all things American including Ronald Reagan.

Wasn't into politics etc back then, had no idea what it was about but was pretty disturbing.

BarbiesBoyfriend
27th Sep 2011, 09:59
I think Bronx has pretty much put his finger on it. :ok:

rh200
27th Sep 2011, 10:09
The US won't do anything Israel doesn't like.

Hmmm let me get this straight, we have this big monolithic superpower, unmatched military prowess (well at least on the technical side) and its little ol Israel that calls the shots.

Well I'll be dammed and here I was thinking that Israel didn't do anything of significance with out clearing it first with uncle sam:confused:

Cacophonix
27th Sep 2011, 10:13
and its little ol Israel that calls the shots

Never underestimate the power of lobby groups!

Caco

BarbiesBoyfriend
27th Sep 2011, 10:17
'little ol Israel'.

Why, it wouldn't harm a fly. :uhoh:

You know, folks. The pro-Israel types who can see no wrong in anything they do or say are way overdue- WAY over, for a check in with reality.

Andu
27th Sep 2011, 10:26
Barbie's Boy, I sincerely hope it never comes to pass, but if it ever does, I'd love you to come online and give us all your touchy-feely spin on the situation should one day the Palestinians ever get the upper hand and are given free reign to do to the Israelis what most of us "rusted on reactionary pro-Israeli apologists" believe they'll do should they'll ever be given the chance.

rh200
27th Sep 2011, 10:30
Never underestimate the power of lobby groups!Well get your own lobby groups.

You know, folks. The anti-Israel types who can see wrong in anything they do or say are way overdue- WAY over, for a check in with reality. ;) Sorry BB couldn't help myself.

As I said before if your significantly on either side of the fence its irrelavent, your view is always correct. Its human nature, and that's part of the problem.

I always stated if particular conditions are meet by the Palestinians and then nothing changed, I would support outside force to help them out. It is very unlikely that any one from the anti Israel side would ever do the opposite and agree to assist Israel if they gave ground and still got done over.

Storminnorm
27th Sep 2011, 10:35
I suppose the UN could stick in a load of "Peacekeepers"?

That would give both sides something to shoot at.

BarbiesBoyfriend
27th Sep 2011, 10:55
Andu.

I'm about as 'touchy-feely' as you are. ie, not very-or not at all.

I'm no huggy-fluff liberal either and I served in the British Army when somewhat younger.

Like many soldiers, I may not know everything, but I know shit when I see it.

We Brits had a big part in what must be the Foreign Policy blunder of the last century. I'm not one of those who calls for the abolition of you-know-where but frankly, we could (and should) have played the cards better when we had the chance.

I wish I knew what happened next in the ME but of course, I don't.

I have a warm feeling though, that the Arab Spring may bring some sort of closure that bit closer. Don't you?

I also know that the AS is very uncomfortable to Israel, and I view that as a 'good thing'- why? Because precisely zero was about to happen as long as the status quo prevailed.

There was a lot of hypocrisy in that part of the world, with the West propping up undemocratic regimes like Egypt and their like. Now there's a bit less. :ok:

It's a start, but where will it end? :confused:

BarbiesBoyfriend
27th Sep 2011, 11:59
Well BandAide. That will be a price worth paying, wont it? :rolleyes:

This sorry tale will end at some point. On that we can probably agree.

parabellum
27th Sep 2011, 12:10
I have a warm feeling though, that the Arab Spring may bring some sort of closure that bit closer. Don't you?



Now who needs a reality check?!!!!!!!!!!

Go live and work among them BB and you will soon discover that they cannot live in a true democracy, tribal loyalties take over every time. A benign dictatorship is the best result you can hope for but you can expect a whole lot more rioting on the streets first, particularly when the promised and highly anticipated 'freedom' doesn't materialise. The arabs are merchants, shopkeepers and the like and don't take kindly to working for anyone, indeed one could be unkind and say they don't take kindly to work, period.

BarbiesBoyfriend
27th Sep 2011, 12:13
Para

Reality check?

Here's one. The Jews are actually a tribe of Arabs- are they not?

They've more in common with their neighbours (unsurprisingly) than any other group. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;)

Live amongst them? You must be joking! I'd sooner stick pins in my eyes than live in either (any) of these places.

That's too far!:D

Wiley
27th Sep 2011, 13:49
Barbie's Boy, I lived among the Arabs for almost 20 years and I have to say, from my close observations, that the hatred that 99% of them, right up to the most Westernised and well educated, have for the Jews is visceral, an almost universal blind spot shared by almost all.

It's my considered opinion -after being told in no uncertain terms by more than one of my Arab colleagues - that if they are ever given the chance with Israel, they would do their damnest to outdo Adolf Hitler (who many Arabs, rather simplisticly, see as a hero).

Obviously not what you wanted to hear, but just the opinion of one who has lived among the Arabs.

As for your comments about 'the Arab Spring', I fear that those Arabs who are demonstrating for democracy and Western values, (a very small number in my opinion, who we only hear about all the time because that's who CNN and the other Western media WISH were the ones trying to oust the current Arab leadership) will be overwhelmed by the radical Islamists, much as the minority Bolsheviks upurped the Russian Revolution from the more moderate revolutionaries.

In my opinion, the Arab Spring could be more accurately labelled 'the Arab Winter', as Egypt,Lybia (and Syria, if they manage to topple Assad), rather than become democratic, will, over the next few years if not months, almost certainly descend into something approaching an Iranian-style fundamentalism with attitudes totally anti the West.

Lyman
27th Sep 2011, 13:49
Shouldn't we be eating more dates? Create a "Sand Bubble"? Let's ask the UN.

Them buggers are mean cause they're skint, right?

I ken it's coz they submit....... And the other blokes don't. Not fair, even more reason to call the UN.

Andu
27th Sep 2011, 23:20
Them buggers are mean cause they're skint, right? I'd be interested to know what the huge amount of aid the Palestinians have received would work out as an amount per head. It would be substantial, I think. Pity most of it is either in Yasser Arafat's widow's bank account or went to buying guns and rockets.

Mike X
27th Sep 2011, 23:57
So the West is playing against itself ?

Lyman
28th Sep 2011, 00:45
Erm, that is a surprise?

Once bitten, twice sly?

Mike X
28th Sep 2011, 01:18
What hope, then ?

It's then clear that the west is responsible. dah, missed that one, again.

Lyman
28th Sep 2011, 02:27
Look, America cares so much about what the World thinks of us, we pay the enemy to kick our ass, what more do you want? Can we have anything? I bit more than the others?

sheesh

Lonewolf_50
28th Sep 2011, 19:53
Lonewolf_50
If one hasn't a grip on why that feature was included, one's arguments against may not hold water.
I agree. The mistake you are making is assuming I don't have a grip on why that feature was included in the UN Charter. I do. The idea wasn't new. When the League of Nations was formed in 1920, each member of the Council had a veto.
The very existence of the SC is a curb.

Bait and switch, and a grip not as firm as you'd like.

The GA has no veto. Only the SC does.

For matters regarding the security of nations and their borders, the SC is the only organ within the UN that has decision authority. Within that decision making body, the curb is not "the decision making body." The curb is the veto.
I wouldn't object as strongly if it wasn't a single veto system.
Sorry, it isn't a veto if it require consensus of any level. It would need another descriptive term.
Your use of the term 'mob rule' is deliberately pejorative.
Correct, and I also used the term 'railroad' which may be idiom from only this side of the pond.

Were I Saddam Hussein, in 1991, I would doubtless perceive the efforts against me as a case of mob rule (moreso in 2003, but since it didn't get UN blessing, he can't blame the UNSC). I expect he was more than disappointed that two Powers, China and Russia/USSR, chose not to put a stop to what he doubtless felt was a railroad job.

If just one permanent member disagrees with the view of all the 14 other members of the SC (incl all the other permanent members), does that make the majority (incl all the other permanent members) a 'mob' in your opinion?
If everyone else in your party chose to leap from a cliff, would you do so as well?

Depends on the case. It can be. Each matter hinges upon its own merits. Your attempt broadbrush attitude, "well, they used a veto, it must be wrong" doesn't satisfy.

It may also be one member just being stubborn (as with the Sovs, and I am sure America on some occasions).

So be it. If a better idea comes up, or one that can pass, due to a veto, then the next iteration doesn't get vetoed. Politics is a two way street.

I offer you again NATO and the silence procedure. In that structure, one veto/break silence, kills the deal. NATO still manages to function. Veto by itself is not inherently improper as a tool.

I didn't cherry pick the time frame; the stats I found via a quick Google happened to be for that period. If you can find the complete list from the beginning, please post it.
It has already been provided, by Load Toad. You will note that this "predilection to use veto" seems to go in cycles. (UN has only been around what, sixty six years? It's young yet).

I cannot find any rational basis for your choosing, on the basis of your disagreeing with America's use of veto, that it is the veto that is somehow the problem.

Go back to why there is a veto.

Absent one, UN does not exist. Is that what you prefer?

As also previously noted by me, all members are not equal. That is the reality of the UN. I am not sure what fantasy version of the UN you think would work an better than the one currently in operation, for all of its imperfections as an organization.
Quote:

Russia/the Soviet Union has used the veto on 123 occasions, more than any other of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

True, but

Let's just stick with "true" and go back to my point on cyclic change above.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has rarely used its veto.
Indeed, for their own reasons. When Vlad gets back into power, he may choose to up the ante, depending upon how many situations come up that he cares enough about.
In stark contrast, America continues to actively use its veto - not only more often than any other of the five permanent members but also (from memory) more often than all of the other permanent members combined.
So what? All members are not equal. See above. Try not to pretend otherwise.

It is an option open to any Power.

Perhaps the Americans are in a position where the need (or perceived need) to do so is greater than others. Perhaps there are other factors).

Please go back to my previous responses:

If your problem is that you feel the US is using it for the security interests of a third party, as a proxy, then say so. Don't beat about the bush.

Since America is involved in security relationships with over 150 nations at a time, it is likely that America, in its policies, is more closely related to a given problem than most other nations, and most other powers. Hence, in the interest of supporting a given sovereign policy, the odds of tossing a turd into the punch bowl are higher.

Break down the vetoes into classes, and see what you get. You may find that the veto itself isn't the problem, its the discrete choices, or patterns, that you disagree with.

Put another way, if your problem is the reasons for using the veto, then please identify them. Don't hide behind a veil of "oh, the veto is wrong."

Simply Using The Veto is not an inherently wrong choice.

It is a choice. No adjective necessary.

With that in mind, I expect to see the Chinese flex a muscle here and there in the next ten years, with that power, just to remind people that they can.

BarbiesBoyfriend
29th Sep 2011, 00:13
Apart from money- and the love of it- what makes the bond between the US and Israel so close?

Culturally, the US & UK ought to be even closer than US/ Israel, but I don't think that's the case.

Here in the UK you often hear about the 'special relationship' between us and the US.

Michael Heseltine MP however, stated correctly that the US is only in a 'special relationship' with one country; Israel.

What gives already?

btw, I think, given the quite partisan nature of this thread, posters should identify themselves. I'm not either Israeli or Jewish myself. Scottish in fact!:uhoh:

Fubaar
29th Sep 2011, 00:14
Backing up Wiley's earlier comments:

'Arab Men Should Sexually Harass Israeli Woman As Resistance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nDqWGtykYNE)

...and the woman is a (you would expect, well educated) lawyer.

11Fan
29th Sep 2011, 00:21
What gives already?

There are some that would subscribe to this.

"I (God) will bless those who bless you (Israel) and will curse those who curse you" (Gen 12:3)

Bible Prophecy Israel and Jerusalem (http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%201%20Israel%20Jerusalem.html)

given the quite partisan nature of this thread, posters should identify themselves.

With what, a tattoo or something? Maybe I can put a star on my jacket? :hmm:

BarbiesBoyfriend
29th Sep 2011, 00:29
11 Fan

Well, thanks for the scripture. I'll bear it in mind.:uhoh:

What I mean is that, people ought to nail their colours to the mast.

If you object to, or you are for, (on this thread) Palestinian statehood- and you're a Jew/ Israeli- say so.

If you object to, or you are for, Palestinian statehood (on this thread) and you're a Palestinian- say so.

Just think it might illuminate some of the more ambiguous posts.



As a Scot, a non-jewish one (there are many Jewish Scots btw), I'll start.:ok:

Edit to add, I have a degree of faith in Biblical Prophecy.

11Fan
29th Sep 2011, 00:42
And just exactly what do think will be gained from that, other than getting the thread closed? Up to this point, this has been a pretty good debate. I believe that the spirit of the discussion is better served maintaining the anonymity of the poster. Given the prejudice that runs deep within this subject, it will serve no other purpose than to antagonize. In my opinion, it adds no value.

Quite frankly, one does not have to be Jewish to be sympathetic to their position. The same can be said for those who agree with the Palestinian point-of-view.

BarbiesBoyfriend
29th Sep 2011, 00:45
Wiley

The US invariably demonises their enemies.

Dont.

They're just good guys like you and me, well- you.

Demonising enemies just makes the troops feel easier when they shoot at them.

It's quite an old tactic.

Don't fall for it. :ok:

BarbiesBoyfriend
29th Sep 2011, 00:52
11.

Ok. I take your point to some extent. And I'd not like to see the thread closed either.

To level up, I just see the debate dividing along the usual lines, and as it does so, when I see a post, I think 'is he saying that because he really believes it- or is he saying that because he's a native?'

(But have we EVER heard from a Palestinian??)

Look. We both know this is highly sensitive on pprune- owing to the original OP being 'from Israel'.

I really think it would be better if posters stated their true position.

But I'm not pressing it any farther than this tho'. Firm.

I'll leave it to posters to decide.

Hopefully I'll get some answers to my post at 0113 later. :ok:

Let's keep it friendly.

11Fan
29th Sep 2011, 00:55
Let's keep it friendly.

I concur.

See ya Ken. :ok:

BarbiesBoyfriend
29th Sep 2011, 01:04
Nitey night 11 Fan.

Don't let the bed bugs bite.;)

11Fan
29th Sep 2011, 01:09
Bed Bugs? :eek:

Man, I was having trouble with backscatter vans and black helicopters. Now I'll never sleep.

Airborne Aircrew
29th Sep 2011, 01:28
given the quite partisan nature of this thread, posters should identify themselves.

I'm Airborne Aircrew, I'm friendly if you're cute with impressive female curves, I don't follow scripture and my favorite hobby is pulling the wings and five legs off bluebottles and filming them skittering around in circles...

Am I allowed to speak yet?

Lyman
29th Sep 2011, 01:35
Seger or mnm?

BarbiesBoyfriend
29th Sep 2011, 01:35
Go ahead Airbone.

Insect molestor!:{

Lyman
29th Sep 2011, 01:37
Fraser, of the Loch

Fubaar
29th Sep 2011, 03:17
Ken,
I went back and read Wiley's post after noting your comments:

Wiley

The US invariably demonises their enemies.

Dont.What did Wiley say that demonises the Arabs (who, if he lived with them for 20 years, one could only assume he didn't see as his enemies)? To me, he simply stated an observation, that most Arabs have a blind spot when it comes to Israel (an opinion I think many, if not you, would share).

As for demonising enemies, I don't think the US is alone there. The Arabs (and their doubtlessly wellmeaning Western apologists) seem to have it down to a fair art when it comes to demonising the Isaelis.

radeng
29th Sep 2011, 08:45
I see the Palestinians have decided that they don't trust Tony Blair, and don't want him as a peace envoy. But who does trust him?

vulcanised
29th Sep 2011, 14:39
Further to that......... Tony Blair's job in jeopardy as Palestinians accuse him of bias - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8795251/Tony-Blairs-job-in-jeopardy-as-Palestinians-accuse-him-of-bias.html)

Storminnorm
29th Sep 2011, 14:52
As if anyone, including Tony Blair, gives a toss!!!

I think his Bank Manager quite likes him though.

Ah well, back to the After Dinner speaking.

Lyman
29th Sep 2011, 16:01
Shrub has boots that need polish.

radeng
29th Sep 2011, 17:14
Stormin,

Does his bank manager like him, or just the size of his account?

BarbiesBoyfriend
6th Oct 2011, 23:48
Perhaps the solution to the 'Palestinian problem', lies in them sharing the ground with their new neighbours?

Jerusalem seems individeable, so why not share it- as they seem to have done for centuries, on and off?

Why not just knock the ground together? Israel & 'the state that hopes to become Palestine'?

After all, they're all locals! :)

parabellum
7th Oct 2011, 05:20
I'm sure if the Palestinians asked the Jordanians nicely to let them have back the vast swathes of the former Palestinian territory that they used to live in the Jordanians would agree, wouldn't they? And how come the Palestinians don't seem too upset about that piece of lost land?

Fitter2
7th Oct 2011, 09:23
Parabellum is presumably in full tongue in cheek mode. Otherwise, a search on 'Black September' would be instructive. The end of that was, of course, the destruction of peaceful Lebanon, but hey, whose country should mind being taken over and destroyed if the Palestinians can't have all they want.

BarbiesBoyfriend
8th Oct 2011, 02:36
For my next trick, I shall posit a solution to the 'current (well since 1948) difficulties in the Middle East.

Stand by.

cavortingcheetah
8th Oct 2011, 02:44
Would that be that Britain is to pay war reparations to the Palestinians?

BarbiesBoyfriend
26th Oct 2011, 02:01
We don't like racism. Or religious bigotry, do we?

Why don't we we just allow all the bloody Arabs who all live there an equal share in how it's run?

Ok. The Jews will say: 'we were here first. But we fu**ed off for a couple thousand years'.

The Arabs will say, 'we didn't!'

Most folk will say: 'Who cares- just put that knife away'.

A racist state is intolerable. We can agree that at least.

Jerusalem is indivisable.

Jews are a tribe of Arabs. Well, where else are they from?

We all want peace.

Share it.

Airborne Aircrew
26th Oct 2011, 12:08
BBF:

So... How are those rose coloured glasses working for you? :E

11Fan
31st Oct 2011, 17:50
Dang, there goes the funding.

The acceptance of the Palestinian mission into the U.N.'s cultural and educational agency could result in backlash from Washington, which is required by law to cut off funding to the agency if a Palestinian Liberation Organization is granted membership in any group at the international body.

U.S. Will Withhold Funds For U.N. Agency After Vote To Grant Membership To Palestinians | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/31/us-could-withhold-funds-to-un-agency-after-vote-to-grant-membership-to/?test=latestnews)

Anyone want to host the UN in their country for a while?

El Grifo
31st Oct 2011, 17:58
It makes one wonder where this sad and sorry story will go next and how juvenile and petty it will get.

You would not believe it is being dealt with by grown adults :ugh:

hellsbrink
31st Oct 2011, 18:04
You would not believe it is being dealt with by grown adults


On ALL sides, El G, not just those who "support" Israel officially.

sitigeltfel
31st Oct 2011, 18:05
If UNESCO wants to stick two fingers up to the USA and admit a terrorist outfit that has murdered US citizens, when they were forewarned of the consequences, then so be it. Ye reap what ye sow.

BarbiesBoyfriend
31st Oct 2011, 18:14
Sitigeltfel

The US just makes itself look small minded with actions such as this.

It's like 'Do what we want, or we're not playing'.

In fact, it reveals the ugly side of the extremely biased US policy in the ME. Ugly.

sitigeltfel
31st Oct 2011, 18:21
I'm sure the families of those slaughtered will agree with you :rolleyes:

BarbiesBoyfriend
31st Oct 2011, 18:22
Where?

Gaza?

hellsbrink
31st Oct 2011, 18:27
BB

Have you heard the *Palestinians* renounce violence, renounce terrorism or hand over those who think it is ok to be a part of terrorist activities? No, you haven't because they haven't.

So why should they be recognised as a "state" in any shape or form when they will not take the smallest steps to resolve the situation by NOT kidnapping people (how long was Gilat Shalit held hostage for, again, and why was he kidnapped?), NOT attacking a sovereign state, NOT harbouring terrorists and actually NEGOTIATING REASONABLY with Israel?

When they take these small steps, then I'll have a smidgen of respect for them. Until that day comes, my view is the same. Go in and go in hard to rid the region of the vermin that are refusing to "bring peace". And that ain't the Jews......

sitigeltfel
31st Oct 2011, 18:31
Sitigeltfel
In fact, it reveals the ugly side of the extremely biased US policy in the ME.

Yes, supporting the only democratically elected government in the region must surely rankle.

BarbiesBoyfriend
31st Oct 2011, 19:14
Wasn't Hamas democratically elected then?

Hellsbrink. Neither you or I are Palestinian. But both you and I would still be fighting if we were.
To expect the 'Palestinians' to just roll over is naive. Would you?

Sitigeltfel. The US has no problem supporting the Saudi Government. Hardly a bastion of democracy. They kept Mubarrak in power in Egypt for decades.

They do what the hell they like.

hellsbrink
31st Oct 2011, 19:48
Excuse me, BB? The *Palestinians*, who were, effectively, refugees from Jordan (those who aren't from various other countries and are intent on stirring up trouble), are NOT being asked to "roll over". They are being asked to behave like the legitimate "state" they claim they are and RENOUNCE the violence against Israel, RENOUNCE terrorism and ensure those who carry out acts of terrorism are handed over and/or punished accordingly.

They will do NONE of that, yet you think they are somehow above the only, truly, democratic state in the region?


And don't give me that balls about Hamas being elected "democratically". We all know how they gained power in the Gaza Strip against Fatah, who were the "ruling" party in "Palestine". We all remember the massacres carried out in Gaza, where anyone suspected of being Fatah were hunted down and executed, we all saw the reports of the atrocities on the news. They want the region ruled by their style of "Islam" and nothing else. They rule by killing, maiming, torture and fear. Don't try to say they are in any way "democratic", for they are as "democratic" as Mugabe.


I'll say it again. If the *Palestinians* are remotely interested in democracy or becoming a state in their own right then they should RENOUNCE violence against Israel and anyone who disagrees with them, RENOUNCE the terrorist attacks they carry out and hand over all of those who willingly carry out terrorist attacks on Israel to either Israel or the ICC in den Haag. Until that day comes, they should be treated as the scum and vermin they are, and eradicated.

BarbiesBoyfriend
31st Oct 2011, 20:07
quote. 'They will do NONE of that, yet you think they are somehow above the only, truly, democratic state in the region?'

Did I say that? Erm.. no.

quote. 'treated as the scum and vermin they are, and eradicated'

That sort of language has been used before. Those who it was directed at are still justifiably bitter. I think you ought to avoid such terms. If you can.

Anyway, it's UNESCO you ought to be complaining at.

IMHO the whole rather unjust alignment of power and influence in the ME is due for a re alignment.

El Grifo
31st Oct 2011, 20:47
'treated as the scum and vermin they are, and eradicated'


I always said it has been turned on its head in these latter years :ugh:

Nothing has been learned ! Nothing !

vulcanised
31st Oct 2011, 20:50
Last time I looked, the US hadn't paid their dues to the UN for a long time.

Probably won't now.

Lonewolf_50
31st Oct 2011, 21:01
Vulcanized, look again.

11Fan
31st Oct 2011, 21:07
Top 10 donators to the UN budget, 2011

Member state Contribution (% of UN budget)

USA 22.000%
Japan 12.530%
Germany 8.018%
UK 6.604%
France 6.123%
Italy 4.999%
Canada 3.207%
China 3.189%
Spain 3.177%
Mexico 2.356%
Other member states 27.797%

Not to mention "hosting" the UN, which anyone is welcome to take over as far as I am concerned.

Source: United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)

But the funding cut is to UNESCO and the US contributes some $60,000,000.00

"We are not going to be able to continue contributing to the budget," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. "Palestinian membership as a state in UNESCO triggers longstanding legislative restrictions which will compel the United States to refrain from making contributions to UNESCO."

Read more: U.S. Will Withhold Funds For U.N. Agency After Vote To Grant Membership To Palestinians | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/31/us-could-withhold-funds-to-un-agency-after-vote-to-grant-membership-to/#ixzz1cObYUSip)

Lonewolf_50
31st Oct 2011, 21:09
Jews are a tribe of Arabs.

BBF, I think you might find that "Jews are a tribe of Semites," though modern Jews seem to have incorporated some other sorts into their "tribe" affiliation over the past twenty centuries.

Arabs are likewise "a tribe of Semites."

So what? That classification is far too broad brush, and the distinction is neither current, nor relevant to the group identities that are in play for a variety of reasons.

Check the news, Arabs can be right bastidges.

Saudi royal offers bounty to catch Israeli soldier - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Israel-Palestinians - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45095916/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa)


Prince Khaled bin Talal, brother of billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, told the kingdom's al-Daleel TV station by telephone Saturday that he was raising a previous offer made by Sheik Awadh al-Qarani, a prominent Saudi cleric who promised $100,000 for capturing an Israeli soldier.
"I tell Sheik al-Qarani that I support you and I will pay $900,000 to make it one million dollars to capture an Israeli soldier to release other prisoners," said a voice identified as Prince Khaled, who holds no official position in the government.
The Saudi offers follow in the wake of the release of Israeli soldier Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who was held by Hamas in Gaza for more than five years. Israel has agreed to free over 1,000 prisoners in exchange.
Prince Khaled said he made the offer in response to what he said were Israeli threats against Qarani's life. He did not provide any further details.
In Israel, extremists have offered two rewards of $100,000 to anyone who kills a Palestinian released in the Shalit deal if the Palestinian killed Israelis.

Nice neighborhood in that part of the world, don't you think.

11Fan
31st Oct 2011, 21:12
said a voice identified as Prince Khaled, who holds no official position in the government.

Is this one of those "famous last words" things?

Daddy, what happened to Uncle Khaled?
He went for a walk son, a long walk.....

BarbiesBoyfriend
31st Oct 2011, 21:26
Lonewolf

I think the whole lot are a complete shower of (insert appropriate euphanism) s.

My point about the Arabs/ Jews was that they're mostly the same thing.

I bow to your superior knowledge about 'semites', but I think we agree that to a casual observer, there's not a lot to choose.

Thank Goodness I'm British!

As for this whole Palestinian thing. I'm all up for fairness.

I don't like to see the US ganging up with Israel to do the 'Palestinians' in at every turn.

I'm not anti-US. But the US/ Israel alliance stinks.

Give these poor buggers a fair crack.

The UN recognised Israel back in 1948. That was good enough for all of us.
If it recognises Palestine? Should be the same.

Play with a straight bat!:ok:

parabellum
1st Nov 2011, 10:33
Play with a straight bat!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


The Palestinians are so keen to clean up their act and play with a straight bat that they have acquired some very powerful truck mounted rocket launchers that can reach deep into Israel and recently killed an Israeli women with these rockets.

BarbiesBoyfriend
1st Nov 2011, 10:47
Para

If you'd said 'The Palestinians are so keen to clean up their act and play with a straight bat that they have acquired several squadons of F-16s and a couple hundred Abrams tanks.....'. you'd have been onto something.

Wiley
1st Nov 2011, 11:21
A question for you Ken (aka BBB): have you ever met a Palestinian? In the flesh, I mean. The way you champion their cause, never finding fault with them, makes me think your experience of them is from afar.

There's an old saying that the further you are away from the battlefield, the more patriotic you become. I think a similar analogy could be drawn of those who champion the Palestinian cause - the further you are away from them, the more heroic you can fondly imagine them to be.

Ancient Observer
1st Nov 2011, 11:42
It is not about support for Palestinians, it is about "balance". The Israelis kill 10 Arabs for each Israeli killed. The Arabs retaliate with very dodgy indiscriminate killings by long range missiles, and bombs on buses, the Israelis retaliate by using phosphor bombs.......... someone arms the Arabs, someone else arms the Israelis. On it goes. The Israelis put up a concrete wall........they might aswell put one up between Kent and the rest of the UK.....

It would be nice for it to stop.

Given that the UN created Israel, why doesn't it just create Palestine??

BarbiesBoyfriend
1st Nov 2011, 11:51
Wiley.

I am not a supporter of the Palestinians. Firm.

Neither am I a supporter of the status quo.

I am one who objects to the way things are today.

Who wouldnt, FFS?:rolleyes:

vulcanised
1st Nov 2011, 12:48
Neither am I a supporter of Palestine, but very much a sympathiser, oh yes.

Capot
1st Nov 2011, 16:10
Why doesn't it just create Palestine??

It did. It consisted of the Gaza strip and the West Bank. The rest of Palestine was "given" to Israel, whereupon the Israelis carried out ethnic cleansing of land given to them, with all the usual atrocities that accompany such activities.

This saw the majority of Arabs whose homes had been there for centuries moved to refugee camps in Gaza, Lebanon and Jordan.

Then the Israelis took control by force of the West Bank and Gaza strip, and have been occupying or controlling it ever since. The main purpose of this occupation has always been, and continues unabated today, the construction of settlements on Palestinian land, the majority of which (an increasing number every week) are intended to remain as Israeli land, if and when a State is declared.

Attempts to create a Palestinian State have always been frustrated at the last minute (eg Sharon's walk in 2000) so as to allow the building of more settlements while the arguments are prolonged interminably.

It was true 10 years ago, and is true today but with larger numbers, that of the 1.4 million residents in the Gaza camps at least 900,000 (18+ age) were and still are refused the documentation by Israel that would allow them to leave to make a proper life and work elsewhere. They, and their parents and grandparents have been prisoners in an arid strip of land about 40Km by 10Km all their lives, with no hope of peace, happiness or even dignity, harassed by the IDF's patrols of Russian conscripts even in "peaceful" periods, and occasionally casually killed by the IDF.

So let's not believe all the Israeli publicity machine tells us. I worked there a few years ago and learned that the propaganda relies greatly on the real state of affairs, and the brutality of the occupation, being almost unbelievable.

Fitter2
1st Nov 2011, 23:18
It did. It consisted of the Gaza strip and the West Bank. The rest of Palestine was "given" to Israel, whereupon the Israelis carried out ethnic cleansing of land given to them, with all the usual atrocities that accompany such activities.


Er, no actually. The UN gave them a considerably smaller area than they occupy now, whereupon Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked them with professional armies. Israel fought back, survived and expanded to defensible borders.

If the Palestinians would accept Israel's right to exist, there could have been a negotiated peace many years ago.

Matari
2nd Nov 2011, 01:01
Comfortable, leftist Western Europeans, who take for granted their own rights of freedom of expression, religion and assembly, are so incredibly hostile to one of the only states in the Levant and surrounding region which allows those very same rights.

hammer2
2nd Nov 2011, 01:31
..........

parabellum
2nd Nov 2011, 01:58
One would think they would perceive that course is not working.




For a minority it is working, the amount of aid that pours into the Palestinians is staggering, but little of it gets to the average family in the street, it is creamed off by the totally corrupt Palestinian leadership.

RatherBeFlying
2nd Nov 2011, 05:11
Back before WWI, the mandatory territory of Palestine was divided into vilayets of Beirut and Syria and the musharrifiyat of Jerusalem with borders that have little resemblance to today's. The current borders in the ME have next to nothing in common to the pre-WWI Ottoman borders of its various political divisions and subdivisions.

Any argument based on Versailles 1919 borders has a very thin historic foundation compared to the far longer duration of the Ottoman empire.

There is a lot of characterisation of Palestinians as "arabs" that conveniently forgets that the spread of Islam was also the spread of Arabic to native populations from Morocco to Iraq and Syria. It should be noted that there remain communities in the ME that continue to speak ancient languages such as Aramaic.

Genetic research has found that Palestinians have considerable genetic ties to the pre-Christian population which should not be a surprise. That population which remained through two millennia of invasions and warfare largely converted to Christianity and Islam. The Jewish population increased substantially when the Ottomans accepted refugees from the Inquisition.

It is a modern day miracle that the ME policy of the world's superpower has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the settlement movement. Menachim Begin founded Likud which has been the settlement movement's primary exponent in Israel. Today AIPAC owns the US Congress. Many, if not all, Representatives and Senators who spoke openly against Likud policies have lost their seats.

Recently Netanyahu's speech to Congress was interrupted many times by standing ovations -- contrast that to his speech to the UN where the delegates sat on their hands -- then to Abbas' speech which received many ovations.

The US view of the ME is highly blinkered compared to that of the rest of the world which knows much better the daily brutalisation and dispossession of Palestinians in Gaza and the WB. The Palestinians are finally catching on that negotiations simply throw a cover over the ongoing seizure of water, grazing lands, farms and homes from the indigenous population; so, they have taken the position that so long as land is being robbed from them, there ain't no point talking peace with the robber.

I have been a daily reader of Ha'aretz, a Meretz organ, for a decade. There is a substantial portion of the Israeli population that deplores the ongoing brutalisation and robbery of Palestinians and is increasingly alarmed that the settlement movement has taken so much land that a viable Palestinian state has become an impossibility.

Note that the Israeli right for the last few years has been talking up returning Palestinians to their putative homeland of Jordan -- an utter lie in geography, ethnology and history.

Abbas has begun talking about returning the keys to Israel and giving them back the responsibility of running and paying for the occupation. The Palestinians are talking of shifting to Gandhi's civil disobedience tactics which began their development in reaction to the onset of apartheid in South Africa where Gandhi was born.

The Israeli government has become acutely sensitive to the "apartheid" label. In its latest effort, Judge Goldman was prevailed upon to write a Times op-ed which torturously explained how Israel proper is not an "apartheid state" while the WB and Gaza are merely a security problem. The rumor is that his Orthodox synagogue was about to deny him admission to his grandson's bar mitzvah.

Capot
2nd Nov 2011, 15:39
Gaza has been controlled by Palestinians for 5 years now, Capot. You should update your polemic,If you had ever been to Gaza, you would know that the territory and the people in it are totally under the control of Israel in every real sense. Any "control" exercised by the Palestinians is only by the permission of the Israelis, and deals with minor administrative functions. Palestinian control does not extend to most Governmental functions, such as controlling exit from or entry into Gaza, or what happens to Gaza's water, two of Israel's most powerful levers.
Did the Palestinians destroy their own airport?

BarbiesBoyfriend
3rd Nov 2011, 23:45
For info. There's a program on BBC Radio Four this weekend (1330Z Sunday- check the time) called 'The state of Israel'.

I gather from the trailer that some of the issues being discussed on here will be aired.

I was surprised to hear (in the trailer) that many (but not all) in Israel believe that Jerusalem is the centre of Israel and that Israel is the centre of the world.

Further; The World revolves around Israel (Zion)and if you don't agree, you are wrong.


Never heard this before!

Matari
4th Nov 2011, 00:27
And others believe the world revolves around a tiny black rock in the middle of the desert. The difference is, in one place you can believe and practice whatever you want, in the other you can't. Yet the former is the problem, and not the latter?

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 01:53
As long as you're Jewish, right? :ok:

Matari. What's this 'black rock' stuff you're hinting at?

con-pilot
4th Nov 2011, 03:29
As long as you're Jewish, right?

If you are talking about religious freedom in Israel, you are quite incorrect. About every religion, including Islam, is allowed in Israel.

Christ, there are religions in Israel I have never heard of. And that's saying a lot considering all the crazy religions that are just in California. :p

No_Speed_Restriction
4th Nov 2011, 03:30
Could Matari be referring to the Kaaba in Mecca?

hellsbrink
4th Nov 2011, 05:18
Come on, c-p, stop letting facts ruin BB's bigotry

parabellum
4th Nov 2011, 11:03
Matari. What's this 'black rock' stuff you're hinting at?


Really showing your ignorance now!:)

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 11:56
Para/ Matari.

Dearie dear. You're correct. I'd never heard or read about the 'Kaaba' before. Still, here on pprune, every day's a schoolday! At least it proves I'm no supporter of the Islamic ones.;)

My other point was that surely Israel is the Jewish state? ie, a state that exists primarily as a state for, well.....Jews. What else is it for?

'Jewishness' is a religion, so by definition.........it's not the centre of multi-religious tolerance that you suggest.

Here in the UK, Con-Pilot, your statement about other all other versions of worship being permitted would be 100% correct.

I mean. my dentist is Jewish. He's also Scottish. But if you ask him where his loyalty lies, and I have, it's not to Glasgow!

Could someone please enlighten me about this 'centre of the world' stuff?

ORAC
4th Nov 2011, 12:10
My other point was that surely Israel is the Jewish state? ie, a state that exists primarily as a state for, well.....Jews. What else is it for? 'Jewishness' is a religion, so by definition.........it's not the centre of multi-religious tolerance that you suggest.

Wrong again.....

Religion in Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel)

No_Speed_Restriction
4th Nov 2011, 12:25
BB, have you ever been to Israel?

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 12:57
Chaps. I confess that I have not been.

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 12:59
Orac

So it's NOT the Jewish state then?? A state that exists primarily as a state for Jews.

Cometh on.

No_Speed_Restriction
4th Nov 2011, 13:10
So it's NOT the Jewish state then?? A state that exists primarily as a state for Jews.

Cometh on

Surely this has to be a wind-up. That or you're extremely ignorant; spouting all this nonsense and you haven't even stepped foot in Israel. I take it most of your info comes from BBC news; a commonly known anti-semitic entity.

Enjoy winding everyone else up, I'm not falling for it :=

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 13:42
No Speed

That was in response to ORACs post 246. Not a wind up.

MagnusP
4th Nov 2011, 14:13
So did you read the bit about freedom of religion in Israel? Are you aware that the UK is regarded as a Christian country, but freedom of religion exists? You want to try practicing Christianity in some Muslim countries?

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 14:25
Magnus. Yes, I read it.

So, yes, I understand that you can practise whatever religion you like there.

So why the big problem with sharing the territory?

Why can't they all just live there together, a-practising whatever religion takes yer fancy?

No_Speed_Restriction
4th Nov 2011, 14:47
Because it's part of the palestinians' manifesto not to recognise an Israeli state. In fact it's Hamas' publicly known declaration which states they want to push all the Israelis into the Mediterranean that has put a wedge in the "peace process"; coupled with the fact that Iran, a known Hamas supporter, wants to wipe the "Zionist regime" off the map.

BB, I don't think you really understand the ins and outs of the constant daily struggle Israel faces when surrounded by a constant threat.

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 15:03
No speed.

You're correct about me not really understanding the daily struggle you refer to.

I'm not pro or anti either (any!) of the parties involved.

I'm just sick to the back teeth of the struggle we all find ourselves in and, justifiably or not, I know enough to realise that Israel is the pivot on which our troubles turn.



Were I in a position to force a settlement, I'd simply lump all the affected territory, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank etc., together.

I'd name it the Holy Land, they could all practise whatever religions they wanted and get on with their lives.

So why don't you tell me why that would not work.

No_Speed_Restriction
4th Nov 2011, 16:09
BB,

You could lump all the territories together as you say but all you'd be doing is putting the cat amongst the pidgeons whilst you lie back on your comfy chair thousands of miles away patting yourself on the back on a job well done; or so you think.

Don't forget, there are Israeli Arabs who co-exist peacefully in Israel; respecting the law of the land and above all recognising Israel's right to exist. At the end of the day, that's all it comes down to. Israel has on many occasions offered the olive branch in a bid to secure peace on its borders only to have it thrown back at it's face because the Palestinians will simply not recognise Israel or give an assurance to violent-free borders.

Let me pose this hypothetical question. If you think Palestine is ready to become an independent state, would you agree Israel shouldnt have to provide the Palestinians with electricity, water, financial aid (which runs into the millions) etc, etc? Surely, by applying for statehood, they would be ready to stand on their own feet and cope themselves. The infrastructure isn't there.

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 16:30
No speed

Why would the cat be amongst the pigeons?

They could all live there. That seems to what they all want to do.

They would all be free to practise whatever religion they preferred.

'Palestine' would be no more, as would Israel. That's would be contentious, mind you.:uhoh:

The problem of dividing Jerusalem would not arise.

A giant and intractable problem that shows NO sign of being solved, would be gone and the World might have less terrorism to deal with.

Alright, this is only pprune and we're only kicking the issue around, but why not?

G-CPTN
4th Nov 2011, 16:35
Would you recommend the same solution for Ireland?

No_Speed_Restriction
4th Nov 2011, 16:40
Our "mild" little debate alone serves as a prime example of how there is no solution as it currently stands. I understand when you say you would like to see everyone co-exist and "get along" but I'm afraid you are just trying to formulate a "utopian" solution to a deep rooted problem whereby both parties have to respect each other and not just one.



Have a look at the map of Israel and see how much land has been given away in the past. There is not much of Israel left; you can't give away land you just don't have.

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 16:44
G-CPTN
I think a solution's been found for Ireland. I served there, so I'm glad.

No Speed.

Well, a solution will have to be found at some point. And it will be.

I think that my idea is best!

No_Speed_Restriction
4th Nov 2011, 17:01
BB,

I think the next step in your quest for Middle East peace is to visit the region. This would help complete the slightly distorted image you have been fed by the media.

So.....what do you say?

BarbiesBoyfriend
4th Nov 2011, 17:05
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.

con-pilot
4th Nov 2011, 17:14
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.

Well, that pretty well eliminates even the slighest hint that you would perhaps have an open mind on this subject. :p

No_Speed_Restriction
4th Nov 2011, 17:21
BB, standard sentiment for someone who has limited grasp on Middle East issues. I always invite people who wax lyrical on the matter to come over and view the region, speak to the people and learn what "is" actually happening yet they always seem to back out when confronted with the opportunity to have their misdirected views proven wrong....and there lies the real problem!!!!

Capot
4th Nov 2011, 17:54
Let me pose this hypothetical question. If you think Palestine is ready to become an independent state, would you agree Israel shouldnt have to provide the Palestinians with electricity, water, financial aid (which runs into the millions) etc, etc? Surely, by applying for statehood, they would be ready to stand on their own feet and cope themselves. The infrastructure isn't there.


Oh dear, where do we start? The West bank and Gaza have entirely adequate water resources; however in Gaza at least it's all pumped out to Israel, with just enough being returned to sustain daily life but little else, eg farming. That's why there are green, irrigated fields on one side of the fence, and desert on the other. Israeli propaganda is that "the Arabs are unable to look after the land". True, but only because they are denied the water.

Palestine gets more than enough financial aid from sources other than Israel, eg the Gulf States and the Palestinian diaspora in the USA and elsewhere. The infrastructure isn't there because Israel has always prevented, and continues to prevent the import of materials with which to create infrastructure.

Keef
4th Nov 2011, 18:18
The whole sorry mess makes me very, very sad.

I've visited Israel (several times) and sat and talked long into the night with both Israeli and Palestinian people (separately). The ones I spoke to were gentle, thoughtful folk. What they most wanted was peace, which is denied to them by a variety of "leaders". I'm really not sure which leaders are the biggest problem.

Israel is for "those of Israeli descent", which is an ethnic definition, not a religious one. Although most are almost by definition also of the Jewish faith, some most definitely are not. The wackiest Jewish extremists, living in some very strange ghettoes (such as Meah Shearim) have US rather than Israeli passports since they don't recognise the "State of Israel". It's complex.

Israeli law and policy allow total freedom of belief and worship. However, the same courtesy is not afforded to Christians in the Palestinian territories - they are dwindling/leaving in large numbers.

I walked through Jerusalem (which is an amazing place), listening to loudpeakers on the walls shouting out hatred of Israelis and encouraging faithful Muslims to kill Jews. My Jewish guide on that occasion said "it's just the mad mullahs - we ignore them". If they'd gone on like that in London, they'd have been arrested.

In my travels through most of Israel and the "dangerous areas", I only ever met total courtesy from everyone. I wouldn't go to some of those places now (I don't think I'd be allowed to, for my own safety). But I did see aggressive open hostility between Israelis and Palestinians. That will take a long time to repair - if ever. They were at it 3,000 years ago when they were called Israelites and Philistines, and not a lot seems to have changed in attitudes in the meantime. It's very, very sad.

I wish I had an answer, but given that Jerusalem and the other key places are very important to all parties involved, I can't see anyone giving up an inch of key territory without a fight.