This is another subject that cannot actually be rationally discussed.

Any mention of “facts” will be met with an increasingly histrionic barrage of “counter-facts” and allegations of violent atrocity.

But the truth of the matter is that if you look at the relative attitude of the even the most aggressive Israeli government towards Palestine is one of cowering timidity compared to the recently-elected Hamas party in Palestine. And there are such difficult questions facing the behaviour of the Palestinian “establishment” towards Israel.

Why is it acceptable for Hamas to vow that they will not stop until they have destroyed Israel, but unacceptable for Israel to respond to actual, physical Hamas aggression? Why is it wrong for Israel to launch air strikes against missile attacks? Why do a million Muslims enjoy the same freedoms and protections as Israelis in Israel, when a Jew cannot safely set foot in Palestine?

There have been times in the past where I’ve thought that Israel’s response was heavy-handed, but then, if I was the one facing random missile attacks, I wouldn’t be thrilled to hear my Prime Minister say that we need to “show restraint”. I’d be right there screaming for the protection of my family and myself.

And if you have a missile and you shoot it at one of the world’s most heavily armed, most militarised societies, what exactly do you expect the response is going to be? Personally, I wouldn’t dream of picking a fight with the Israelis because not only are they armed to the teeth, but they’re very used to being in a fight.

It looks to me very much like an extreme case of politics to me. There is Palestinian leadership that is largely immune to the consequences of what they say. The “little people” bear the brunt of rash words and actions, and nobody is genuinely accountable (on the Palestinian side) for inciting war and fomenting hatred. And of course, the use of fatwa and jihad to justify the provocation further excuse Hamas from almost anything. It’s a self-feeding cycle.

No-one dares to censure the Palestinian authorities. Indeed, large swathes of the international community seem to positively endorse militant anti-Israel cant while vilifying the Israelis for anything they say or do.

I could understand if people criticised the Palestinian authorities for fomenting trouble, or allowing an area under their control to be used for acts of aggression against the Israelis and criticised the Israelis for excessively forceful responses. But it seems to me that that the lines are drawn and comment is only on one side or the other.

I wish someone would explain this awful, messy, unpleasant situation to me.

Stabledoor September 9, 2011 at 15:41

If the Arabs put down their weapons there would be peace

If the Israelis put down their weapons they would be wiped out

Single Acts of
Tyranny September 10, 2011 at 06:04

This is no more than a reflection of the fact that the Jews enjoy the
power and influence. It’s like saying if you gave a prison officer the keys
to the jail he wouldn’t try to escape but if you gave a convict keys he
would try to escape.

Look at the murderous activities of various Jews pre-1947. They are an
alter-image of the various Palestinian murderers today.

Hysteria September 9, 2011 at 14:07

I like the “where would you choose to live” thought experiment.

The other one is

1 – If Israel completely stopped all and any acts of violence, would the
Arab side then cease and desist?

2 – If the Arabs completely stopped any an all acts of violence, would the
Israelis desist.?

I think the answer to Q1 is No, and the answer to Q2 is Yes.

Single Acts of
Tyranny September 9, 2011 at 04:59

Do you refer to the ones who escaped bondage in Egypt as Moses lead them to
freedom?

ivan September 8, 2011 at 23:26

There never was a Palestinian State, only an administrative area called
Palestine. Then along came a power mad Egyptian, by the name of Arafat, who
stirred up the arabs living in the area – the result we see today is mainly
because of that as well as the British reneging on what was given to the Jews
at the time of the official creation of the modern state of Israel.

Something else that is never talked about by the PC brigade is the fact
that there have been Jews living there from biblical times.

Jer September 9, 2011 at 09:48

Sorry, but historically speaking you are just plain wrong.

The was a Palestinian state (or series of confederated states) in the
Bible, who do you think King David was fighting for in his mercenary
days?

The reason the PC brigade, and everyone else, doesn’t talk about there
being Jews in “the Holy Land” since Biblical times is surely that it is
bleeding obvious! However, as above, there have _also_ been Palestinians
there likewise.

Interesting that you refer to Arafat as a “power mad Egyptian”, one could
say the same about Moses (the name is Egyptian, not Jewish).
Coming up to
date though, and I’m shakier on modern history, I believe the only reason
Arafat became leader of the PLO is that Mossad assasinated all the other
leaders.

ivan September 9, 2011 at 10:50

How could there be Palestinians when there was no state of that name?
Arafat was looking for something to make a name for himself and used the
‘poor, hard done by arabs’ living in the Jewish state as the means. He
gained support from the Arab states because they saw it as a way of
removing the Jewish state by the back door after their frontal attacks
were flattened. The fact the arabs that joined Arafat are now worse off
than those that accepted the Jewish state is held up by the loony left and
their hangers on as something caused by the Israelis and not of their own
making that it surely is.

Jer September 9, 2011 at 14:47

“How could there be Palestinians when there was no state of that
name?”

Ask a Kurd.

Note that I didn’t defend Arafat, or Moses.

John B September 8, 2011 at 22:12

The has been a continuous Jewish presence in Israel, and especially
Jerusalem, since it all began.
I believe even before Lord Balfour Jerusalem
was about half Jewish.
There is an amazingly intense visceral hatred of the
Jews that probably goes back to the hatred of Satan at a plan of God.
The
current policies of the world powers, UN, etc, are obviously to destroy Israel
by forcing it back to the indefensible 1949 armistice borders.

This video explores the legal basis of Israel:

http://givepeaceachance.info/

Engineer September 8, 2011 at 21:59

Didn’t the Normans conquer the Holy Land in the 11th century? Does
modern-day Normandy have a claim too?

GildasTheMonk
September 9, 2011 at 12:37

I think technically it was an alliance of all the major European states,
though the Norman influence was a very important one. Tough fellows in those
days

C. Masterton
September 8, 2011 at 21:30

Understanding the the Israel/Palestinian conflict is actually really,
really easy. Islam conquered the area in the 7th Century. According to Islamic
Theology, once a region becomes Islamic it must remain so for perpetuity and
in particular cannot be allowed to remain a sovereign Jewish state as in the
case of Israel. It is therefore a theological imperative for the Arab
leadership to destroy Israel. They are not interested in a permanent two-state
solution – that idea is purely for Western consumption. When they talk amongst
themselves in Arabic, they make plain that the establishment of “Palestine”
alongside the Jewish state is simply a stepping-stone, a Trojan horse, a
springboard to attack and finally eliminate the hated Jews.

One more thing. The Arabs have become masters of propaganda. They have
invested billions of petro-dollars in re-writing the history of the Middle
East and convincing most of the world those diabolical, wicked the Jews stole
“their land”. This is perfectly legitimate according to Islamic Law – i.e to
lie and deceive the enemy, which we as “infidels” most certainly are in their
view.

Only God can solve this problem … but we as westerners are in general far
too sophisticated to believe in God!

Mjolinir September 9, 2011 at 21:09

Look up “Caliphate” then “Shi’a-Sunni relations” in Wiki.
You may not
then understand the problems WRT Judaism/Zionism , but you should understand
WHY there are problems within Islam.

Matt
Wardman September 10, 2011 at
05:43

I find that a pretty card-board cutout version of Islam + Islamic
theology.

Mudplugger September 8, 2011 at 21:26

We’re in the land of ‘guilt trips’ and good PR.

At the end of WW2, there was an outpouring of ‘guilt by association’
amongst the victors, simply because they hadn’t prevented Hitler’s rise and
excesses, of which the Jewish Holocaust was only one. (The gays didn’t get
their own country, or the Gypsies etc).

The Zionists cleverly marshalled their political forces, invented
international terrorism and embarked on lots of slick PR to extract from the
victors (in the person of the UN) the gift of land, regardless of who was
living there, and ‘supported’ by the earlier Balfour Declaration, the real
origins of which remain highly suspect.

And every time since, when anyone has the temerity to challenge Israel’s
occupation of that land, their PR experts just reach for the Holocaust Guilt
Card, just to keep the old message fresh. Cynical ? Yes. Effective ?
Certainly. Honourable ? You decide.

Zaphod September 8, 2011 at 20:12

Israel is often well out of order, by modern standards; but instinctively I
can’t help admiring their spirit.

They are surrounded by committed enemies who fervently desire their
complete annihilation. Israel cannot afford our wishy-washy liberal
standards.

The world splutters and foams at the mouth, but Israel means to
survive.

Duke of Anarchy
September 14, 2011 at 16:01

If the Israelis want their country to survive, they’ve been going about
it entirely the wrong way for at least the past thirty years. Even today,
Israel is only barely able to sustain itself thanks to immense American aid.
In the long run (~50 years) Israel is doomed.

Patrick Harris
September 8, 2011 at 20:02

Fact 1 – The Jews got screwed big time.
Fact 2 – Don’t try screwing the
Jews again.
End of.

Earthtracer
September 11, 2011 at 23:38

Bunkum!

Michael September 8, 2011 at 19:02

I think the difference is that the Israeli government don’t tend to throw
their political opponents from the roofs of high-rise blocks after they win
elections.

binao September 8, 2011 at 18:27

Never been to the Middle East, but had a week of intensive Arab culture
briefing some years ago, and cannot avoid some sympathy for them.
I see no
logic whatever in the original setting up of Israel, but it’s staying and the
consequences will continue for centuries, even if violence subsides.
There
is no point in debating levels of violence- why would Israel risk it’s people
by being softer?
I guess it’s just about looking for small steps forward,
for a very long time.

Mjolinir September 8, 2011 at 17:29

I see no reasonable prospect of ‘peace’ in the area until someone can
resolve the question of occupancy of a piece of land where the adherents of
one major religion built a very Holy shrine, on the known foundations of a
very Holy shrine built a couple of millenia earlier by a different religion –
which is also believed to be sacred by followers of yet another major
religion.

And – although each of these three religions acknowledge the same Deity,
the same early Prophets and sages (The People of the Book) – each is now
seriously (and probably irretrievably?) fragmented.

TheNoseyMole
September 8, 2011 at 15:37

Read the letter that was posted by His Grace Archbishop Cranmer yesterday,
it is very objective comment on the state of the relationship between the
liberal west and Israel

Engineer September 8, 2011 at 14:33

One of the problems we now have in trying to form a balanced view is that
one of the main sources of news, the BBC, is known to follow a sort of
‘group-think’ on many subjects, including this one. That means that almost
everything they report, or any comment piece they broadcast, has to be treated
with a degree of scepticism. Given the importance that matters around the
Isreal/Palestine conflict have to foreign affairs in the Middle East, and thus
the wider world, this is unfortunate. We deserve better from the BBC, and the
people of the region deserve better too.

Jer September 8, 2011 at 14:22

Following on from Earthtracer’s comment above about giving “back” land.

It should be noted that:

1) The tribe of Abraham originated in the Zagros mountains, nowhere near
modern Israel.

2) Many, probably a majority of modern Israelis derive from the Khazars, a
tribe from Russia that adopted Judaism, and as such have no claim to the land
of Israel at all.

3) The palestinians derive from the Peleset “Peoples of the sea” who
invaded Egypt c1200BC (probably proto-Greek) and as such probably have no
absolute claim either.

So there is no “right” answer, other than please can my money not be wasted
on this issue, as no resolution seems likely.

Earthtracer
September 11, 2011 at 23:37

Jer, you are so right. The origins of _all_ of us, taken far enough back,
are not always what we thought.

Now, when are the Norwegians coming to claim back Orkney and
Shetland….?

Gallovidian September 8, 2011 at 14:13

I see no reason to support Israel.

JuliaM September
8, 2011 at 17:26

I see no reason not to.

Jer September 8, 2011 at 19:09

“It’s none of our business” – will that do?

Yes, some will say that as the former immediate colonial power we have
a resonsibility to… whatever, but not in my book.

James Rigby September 8, 2011 at 14:10

Best joke I heard at a recent comedy festival: “Whenever I get junk mail
addressed to “The Occupier”, I give it to my Israeli flatmate.” Sums it all up
really.

Thaddeus J.
Wilson September 8, 2011 at 17:21

How?

tangentreality September 8, 2011 at 14:08

The way I see it, Israel has a fundamental right to exist, and it is
perfectly reasonable of them, as part of the peace negotiations, not to deal
with any organisation such as Hamas, which has dedicated itself to the
destruction of Israel.

That having been said, I don’t see why Israel particularly objects to the
existence of a Palestinian state. As long as it recognises Israel’s
sovereignty, and vice versa, what’s the problem?

The problem is, of course, that years of war have resulted in them hating
each other, which makes it very difficult for them to work out any kind of
settlement.

Bob September 8, 2011 at 21:38

The crux of the matter
“I don’t see why Israel particularly objects to
the existence of a Palestinian state. As long as it recognises Israel’s
sovereignty, and vice versa, what’s the problem?”
Sadly no Arab state,
least of all a potential Palestinian one, recognises Israel’s right to
exist. It is in their mandate to destroy Israel.

Earthtracer
September 11, 2011 at 23:33

Hamas, it should be pointed out, was elected gto power.

The further the Palestinians are pushed into a corner, the more extreme
they have become. Maybe Israel should take a chance, for once, and try an
approiach that does n olt involve the might of arms.

earthtracer September 8, 2011 at 14:00

To answer your question, yes it is. Indeed in many ways it is much much
worse. However, today’s situation was not arrived at overnight. Its origins
lie ‘way back, even before World War I. The infamous Balfour Declaration,
which promised ‘a national home for the Jews’ was undefined. Eventually some
lines were drawn on a map of Palestine, intended to be this homeland (Land in
Uganda having been refused). After WWII, the Jewish Zionist movement, riding
on the back of entirely justifiable sympathy for what the Nazis had done,
launched guerilla attacks on the British forces charged with keeping order in
what was then the Palestinian Mandate – terrorist acts were masterminded by
Menachim Begin and Yitzak Shamir, both of whom later became prime ministers of
Israel. The Arabic side, outraged at having any form of Israeli state created
within their territory, vowed to prevent this. Unfortunately for them, their
rhetoric was better than their fighting ability and the upshot was that when
Israel came into existence, it had grabbed a lot more land than it was
originally destined to be alloted.
There have been faults on both sides
since. However there is an intransigent section of Israelis who regard a lot
more land as theirs – the Biblical Judae and Samaria – and therin lies some at
least of the ongoing problem. Israel has, however, frequently flouted
international law in such a brazen way that it has almost been admired –
indeed has been by some.
The Palestinians, who have most to be aggreived
about, have never had the power to do much about it and still don’t. The wider
international community is greatly at fault, in not putting sufficient
pressure on Israel to conform to a succession of UN resolutions and in not
shoving harder to get a peace agreement. The nearest such an agreement ever
really came was under PM Yitzak Rabin but he was, rather conveniently,
assassinated and that stopped negotiations dead.
The Palestinians no more
understand the Western psyche than we do theirs. Coupled with that is the
desire to do something, anything, to show resistance and their efforts have
become more and more desperate as peace has slid further and further from
their grasp. So they fire squibs at Israel, which then blasts their
communities with wholesale airstrikes….
One should never forget what was
done to Lebanon and the massacres at Shabra and Shatilla, or the fact that
Israel ran a concentration camp for many years (I forget the name offhand).
They confined Mordechai Vanunu in solitary for 11 years for ‘betraying’ the
fact that everyone knew – Israel had an atomic plant at Dimona. Motor
gunboats, which they had ordered from France, had been embargoed – s0 they
simply hijacked them. They kidnapped the extremely nasty Adolf Eichmann from
South America, which it is hard to condemn but was still an illegal way of
going about extraditing him. They bombed and torpedoes the USS ‘Liberty’ in
international waters, killing over 30 of her crew and in spite of her flying a
very large US flag. They attacked the ship heading for Gaza with supplies,
admittedly in a provocative but nevertheless peaceful manner, and killed nine
people. The list is long and no other country in the world would be allowed to
get away with behaving like that; they have surely used up all the credit and
sympathy rightly acquired following WWII.
The handing ‘back’ after some
5,000 years absence, of a piece of land to a people who had been absent for so
long was an odd thing to do, notwithstanding what the Jews said. I wonder how
Americans, for example, would react if it was decided to give all the land
stolen by European immigrants back to the Native Americans? That is, most of
the USA and huge chunks of Canada. And it must not be forgotten how ‘we’ gave
them typhus-infected blankets – or went ‘injun shooting’ in California at
weekends.
I mention the above really to demonstrate that there are no clear
cut distinctions anywhere, whn one looks at historic events. Nor do I offer
any solutions to ‘the awful, messy, unpleasant situation’ that still exists in
Israel and occupied Palestine at the present time. I hope I may have clarified
it a little, although I doubt if many Palestinians or (Zionist) Jews would
agree with any of it….

Mick September 8, 2011 at 14:53

Maybe if one of your ‘SQUIBS’ landed on your family you would think
differently.

Paul September 8, 2011 at 14:58

There have always been Jewish people living in the Palastine area, (60
thousand jews versus 700 odd thousand Arabs) as of 1914. It ramped up
significantly in the years after the end of WW2.

It can be compared to say, Free Presbyterians forming their own country
on the west coast of Scotland (for example) with the help of another more
powerful nation. It grows and grows (in terms of population) as more and
more Wee Frees move to their new land, eventually they become powerful and
have the ear of even more powerful governments who support and fund the new
country.

Expansionism kicks in, more people means more land until eventually
critical mass is reached and tensions over flow.

It should be noted, while Isreal does flout the tenets of international
law, no other country on the planet is subjected to the same threat level
from other countries on its border.

There is also the fine point about Jewish people who used to live in
surrounding Arab countries who were driven out and had no choice but to
settle in Isreal.

Meanwhile the little people (both Jewish and Arab) are left to feel the
pain as the usual political suspects play their ultimately silly ego-driven
power games. There is no easy answer, both have a right to be there although
neither can agree with the other.

In a word: Messy.

Mjolinir September 8, 2011 at 19:24

Thanks @Earthtracer for your review of some incidents in the rather
tangled ‘history’ of the State of Israel.

It might have been helpful to hear your ‘take’ on some hi-jackings by
Palestinian groups – of the El Al plane from Rome in 1968; the ‘Dawsons
Field’ attack in 1970, and the Achille Lauro cruise ship (in International
Waters?) in 1985

And the events involving ‘Black September’ at the 1972 Munich
Olympics.

[The subject of ‘returning’ all peoples to their land of origin- even
though it be 5000 years delayed – is probably a bit TOO convoluted for
coherent discussion here? Especially as “Why don’t you go back where you
came from?” has such heavy overtones of Racism.]

Earthtracer
September 11, 2011 at 23:31

I have been ‘hijacked’ by the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, the late George Habash, prop. More correctly, the PFLP occupied
Amman’s two main hotels, the Intercontinental and the Philadelphia, in
order to exert some leverage on HM King Hussein, mainly. It was
instructive.

In those days (1970), very few people other than retired old sweats
from the British Army and Midle East specialists knew anything about
Palestine, the Mandate, the creation of Israel, etc., etc. They didn’t
learn a lot from this, either, as the UK press, at least, was on strike!
Then came the capture and removal to Dawson’s Field of the four airliners
(Leila Khaled and all that!).

At this point, no civilians had been hurt, though some had been scared
and inconvenienced. It was only after this time that matters were ramped
up, people began to be killed and atrocities were committed.

I had long talks to some of our captors. Most were people who had lost
everything (because they had had to leave their homes) and whose
alternative to resistance via one of the Palestinian groups was just to
give up and give in to despair.

I have always thought that the onus was on Israel to be magnanimous –
they held all the aces, after all – but I, now, truly believe that their
regime is incapable of this. That in no way belittles the efforts of the
many Israelis who work very hard for a peaceful solution, of course – but
they are not the government.

Some, probably distant, day a solution will be found. It might happen a
lot quicker if the US stopped being so hugely pro-Israel….

Disenfranchised of Buckingham September 8, 2011 at 13:58

The Israelis use excessive force, often with provocation, but still
excessive.

How many Turks did they kill on the high seas when they were taking
humanitarian aid to Gaza? Whose land are they building towns on? Whose land
are they building a wall on, splitting villages and farms in half?

Not that the Palestinians are any better but we expect better standards of
a democracy.

Elena ‘andcart
September 8, 2011 at 14:32

Who wrested this land from a Desert that the Arabs didn’t want and didn’t
know what to do with?

See, there I go. Best keep out of this I think.

JuliaM September
8, 2011 at 17:24

I’m all in favour of excessive force. After all, I’m English! ‘Excessive
force’ is written in my genes. We did, after all, invent the term ‘gunboat
diplomacy’.

So I can hardly criticise the Israelis for it…

backwoodsman
September 8, 2011 at 13:39

Spend some time in the sand pit and you will in all probability develop two
things. 1) Aversion to Muslims . 2) Admiration for the State of Israel.

JuliaM September
8, 2011 at 17:23

Spot on!

Jabba the Cat September 10, 2011 at 07:32

+1

Ed P September 8, 2011 at 13:10

Back in 1948, all land to the west of the Jordan river was intended for the
Jews, all to the East for the Palestinians. But then the British (who else,
when there’s a trouble spot to create?) reneged on the agreement and allocated
Israel only approx 28% of the Western part. Yet, with a country only about the
size of Yorkshire, they are under huge pressure on all sides to give up more
land. Why?

Duke of Anarchy
September 14, 2011 at 15:42

1. The British never had any right to give away any Arab land.

2. They are under (all too little) pressure to stop stealing more land,
and return some of what they have stolen in the decades SINCE 1948.

derfe September 8, 2011 at 13:08

simply it is nakba, and some People benefit from it remaining a nakba.

therefore they will try to ensure that it remains a nakba

Engineer September 8, 2011 at 14:37

Please pardon my ignorance, but what’s a nakba?

Mjolinir
September 8, 2011 at 16:57

‘Nakba’ -literally ‘Catastrophe’ (or ‘ Yawm an-Nakbah’ – ‘the day of
catastrophe’) An Arabic term used by Palestinians for a number of events
in the history of the Ottoman Empire and successor States in the middle
East. Now more commonly relating to the ‘dispossession’ of Palestinians
during and after the war that followed the 1947 UN sanctioned removal of
the British mandate and the partition of the territory – which led in turn
to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

Then things got a bit complicated….

Engineer
September 8, 2011 at 17:04

Thanks for that.

boulay September 8, 2011 at 12:36

it is a very simple issue for me – i ask people whether they would rather
live in an Israeli world or a Hamas/Iranian world. it usually makes people
reign in their wild criticisms of the israelis.

when you also ask relatively sane people what they would do to the Irish
(for example) if they were demanding that britain should be wiped off the face
of the earth and that they were receiving training and arms from the
Argentinians and if every morning there was a chance that a rocket would land
on their children’s bus stop then it also helps them to achieve a little
balance….

Single Acts of
Tyranny September 8, 2011 at 20:16

“it is a very simple issue for me – i ask people whether they would
rather live in an Israeli world or a Hamas/Iranian world. it usually makes
people reign in their wild criticisms of the israelis”

That would rather depend on whether or not I was a Jew to be quite
honest. If so, Israel probably. If not, not. Much as if I was white,
aparteid South Africa would have been a wheeze, but if I was a negro, I
probably would not liked it so much.

If you are refering to the FOX news lie about the Iranian President’s
alleged remarks, learn Farsi or talk to someone who can speak it for what he
actually said.

“if every morning there was a chance that a rocket would land on their
children’s bus stop”

Bad all round, but twice as likely if you are an Arab rather than a Jew.
Of course the rocket may come from an F-16 rather than an improvised
launcher, but you still die at twice the rate the Israelis do.

Iran has a justifiably awful reputation based on the actions of the
government, but having spent some time there, I can honestly say, I would
choose Iran to live in over Israel. Just a personal choice, others are free
to differ.

Jonathan
Miller September 9, 2011 at 18:14

“If you are refering to the FOX news lie about the Iranian President’s
alleged remarks, learn Farsi or talk to someone who can speak it for what
he actually said.”

I assume you are referring to the ‘wipe Israel off the map’ speech.
Could you post a link to a reputable translation?

Single Acts of
Tyranny September 10, 2011 at
05:58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ&feature=related

Mrs SAoT is a Farsi speaker and native of Iran who agrees with the
translation here. Please note, I am no apologist for this murderous
delusional clown, but let’s damn him for what he does, not what he
doesn’t say, and let’s not make Blair’s day by being dragged into
another war based on more lies.