2023 Israel - Hamas / Hezbollah war

[Falcon1200]

Why is Israel any different? It is the world's last classical colony. That's what Zionism is - the last throes of 19th Century colonialism. They expelled the indigenous population and simply created a new state by force. Any justification of Zionism is a justification of empire and colonialism.

Were there no Jews living in what became Israel before the state was created? And if we are going down the road of expelling those who moved into another group's land there will be an awful lot of people relocating. Those of European descent from North and South America for example, not to mention those in the UK with Norman or Viking ancestry. Singling out Jews alone for such treatment is reprehensible.

BTW I too deplore Israel's murderous actions in Gaza, and agree that there should be far more condemnation of their conduct.

 

[AlterEgo]

Were there no Jews living in what became Israel before the state was created? And if we are going down the road of expelling those who moved into another group's land there will be an awful lot of people relocating. Those of European descent from North and South America for example, not to mention those in the UK with Norman or Viking ancestry. Singling out Jews alone for such treatment is reprehensible.

It isn't singling out Israelis; the fact you say "Jews" says it all - you correctly identify Israel as an ethnostate. Yes, only Jews can be fully considered Israeli by you, and for good reason. It's a colony, and a racist one which operates apartheid, neatly sequestering the people it hates into little statelet jails in Gaza and the West Bank.

The difference, as I have stated several times, is that some states can only exist based on force of arms - which will tell you all you need to know about their legitimacy. "Israel has a right to exist" - as many people harp on about - what does this mean? Did the British Empire have a right to exist, or a right to defend itself? From where are those rights divined?

In 1921, did "the UK have a right to exist" when it was being attacked by the Irish in Ireland? That was part of the UK at the time - England's oldest colony, which it extracted as much wealth from as it could and treated the Irish as second class citizens. When the UK lost a large portion of its territory after being beaten out of it, were its rights violated by the new Irish State? And this is nothing near as extreme as what has happened to Arab Palestinians over the last 100 years.

People must look at Israel and think "well, this can't be right, can it?".

 

[Cloud Strife]

Im right wing and support Israel’s right to defend itself, and also support the Palestinian’s right to self determination (in other words some kind of two state solution).

I'm a social democrat, and for me, I support a three station solution. Israel within their borders of 1967 plus East Jerusalem (because let's be honest, they're not giving that up), the West Bank with the settlers given a choice to either live within a Palestinian state or they can leave, and an independent Gaza City State.

But even as I find the situation in Gaza to be appalling, I keep going back to a question: how can we ensure peace and safety for everyone?

I don't know the answer. The Arab League taking a leading role in the reconstruction and security of Gaza would seem to be an obvious one, perhaps turning it into a kind of protectorate in which their external security is guaranteed by the Arab League and Israel's security is also guaranteed by the Arab League there. That leaves the West Bank, which absolutely should be independent, but politically, it's going to be nearly impossible for Israel to withdraw from their settlements there. A lot of those settlers are funded with US cash, which makes it even more difficult.

IMO, part of the blame has to lie with the UN allowing this situation to develop in the first place.

 

[baza585]

Because the IRA where much tamer than Hamas and while atrocities did happen they where a lot less keen to hurt civilians. Protestants/Ulster-Scots would have been allowed to live in a United Ireland.

As someone who was out with friends for a social pint or four in Birmingham City Centre on 21 November 1974, I have to disagree that the Provos were less keen to hurt civilians.

All of those killed on that awful night that I still recall most vividly were civilians. The Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town were not military targets; I accept that warnings were given but far too late for any action to save 21 lives, and countless life changing injuries.

Terrorism doesn't have grades of atrocity.

 

[renegademaster]

Terrorism doesn't have grades of atrocity

Under this logic, where we can't draw distinctions between a terrorist group that killed 2000 in day compared to one that didn't kill that many over its entire lifespan, nobody can claim Israel are being disproportionate if all acts of military violence are the same. I'm not trying to morally excuse the IRA but trying to explain why Britain had treated Northern Ireland differently from how Gaza is being treated by Israel.


Britain with its gloves off is a different thing, theirs a reason Belfast didn't look like Dresden. A country fighting a war that will decide is existence will fight differently than one suppressing a relatively small terrorist group , which was why the RAF was justified to bomb Germany but wouldn't have been to bomb Belfast

 

[SynthD]

Israel within their borders of 1967 plus East Jerusalem (because let's be honest, they're not giving that up)

politically, it's going to be nearly impossible for Israel to withdraw from their settlements there. A lot of those settlers are funded with US cash, which makes it even more difficult.

IMO, part of the blame has to lie with the UN allowing this situation to develop in the first place.

It’s on Israel to come to the table fairly, not refusing certain parts of a deal all sides can accept. It’s on the US to tell them that. The UN is doing it’s job all it can while the US votes no.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm a social democrat, and for me, I support a three station solution. Israel within their borders of 1967 plus East Jerusalem (because let's be honest, they're not giving that up), the West Bank with the settlers given a choice to either live within a Palestinian state or they can leave, and an independent Gaza City State.

But even as I find the situation in Gaza to be appalling, I keep going back to a question: how can we ensure peace and safety for everyone?

I don't know the answer. The Arab League taking a leading role in the reconstruction and security of Gaza would seem to be an obvious one, perhaps turning it into a kind of protectorate in which their external security is guaranteed by the Arab League and Israel's security is also guaranteed by the Arab League there. That leaves the West Bank, which absolutely should be independent, but politically, it's going to be nearly impossible for Israel to withdraw from their settlements there. A lot of those settlers are funded with US cash, which makes it even more difficult.

IMO, part of the blame has to lie with the UN allowing this situation to develop in the first place.

I agree that a solution does need the Arab League taking a leading role, rather than the US. Many Arab nations and their citizens still regard the US and it's desire to spread its idea of democracy with deep suspicion (especially given how US politics is going right now), so having an Arab based peace deal where they can secure the borders of Gaza and bring about a level of security and stability that in turn will allow (hopefully) a more moderate future Israeli government to also back down. The region needs a period of no conflict and rebuilding to at least demonstrate that in principle the two warring nations can start down the road to co-exist.

 

[Falcon1200]

It isn't singling out Israelis; the fact you say "Jews" says it all - you correctly identify Israel as an ethnostate. Yes, only Jews can be fully considered Israeli by you, and for good reason. It's a colony, and a racist one which operates apartheid, neatly sequestering the people it hates into little statelet jails in Gaza and the West Bank.

It was quite clear from your statement, to which I responded, that the Zionists you referred to are the Jewish population of Israel.

Although I agree absolutely that the israeli state's actions, not just in response to the Hamas attack but previously too, have greatly contributed to the ongoing conflict in the area, we clearly have rather different views so I will comment no more.

 

[AlterEgo]

It was quite clear from your statement, to which I responded, that the Zionists you referred to are the Jewish population of Israel.

No, I was referring to anyone who justifies Zionism, which is an endorsement of brute force colonialism. That’s rather a lot more than just people who live in Israel - and there are plenty of anti-Zionists who live there who are even Jews themselves. Anti-Zionism was the mainstream view of Jews 100 years ago, mostly because the skeptics felt that any such state could only be perpetuated through eternal war with the Palestinians they were going to ethnically cleanse to create it. And they were right.

None of this - or Israeli history - diminishes the humanity of anyone who lives there, or makes violence or terrorism morally proper. But any discussion of Israel or solutions to the crisis must be predicated on the basis that Israel is the coloniser.

 

[778]

Do the Israelis that live in the West Bank, live alongside the Palestinians or are they fenced off from each other?

Have Jordan and Egypt ever wanted to reclaim the West Bank and Gaza after they lost it to Israel?

 

[SynthD]

Do the Israelis that live in the West Bank, live alongside the Palestinians or are they fenced off from each other?

Fenced off. Israel has built towns and highways with military controls. Palestinians have had their homes and workplaces bulldozed, replaced with Israeli settler towns, and denied access to the new hospital, which is a crime.

 

[DustyBin]

They could always leave. That's what happened to many white colonials in Africa, whose presence was only there because of violence displacing the local population. The colonists were driven out, by force, and usually the same amount of force which was used by their ancestors to set up empire in the first place.

Why is Israel any different? It is the world's last classical colony. That's what Zionism is - the last throes of 19th Century colonialism. They expelled the indigenous population and simply created a new state by force. Any justification of Zionism is a justification of empire and colonialism.

Interesting.... Technically you may have a point, however it's not (in my opinion) quite that simple.

Firstly, whilst you can draw the distinction between Jews and Israeli Jews (i.e. those who settled as part of the Zionist project), the fact remains that the territory of modern day Israel has been home to people who follow Judaism for millennia, during which time they themselves have been persecuted and displaced. Personally I don't think delving into ancient history is particularly helpful in this context as it becomes a circular but X was there first argument, however it's worth mentioning as the claim that a load of Europeans simply turned up out of the blue and colonised Arab lands isn't quite the full story....

Secondly, I can fully understand why Jews felt (feel) the need for a Jewish state, particularly post-1945. That "homeland" would inevitably be (or become) an ethnostate unfortunately, regardless of it's location (not that I want to see that sort of thing). Accepting the need for a Jewish state (which of course you may not), where else could it have been established?

Leaving history aside and fast-forwarding to the present, the reality is that from a Western perspective we need Israel to exist. What would happen to the balance of power in that region if it didn't?

A lot of the right think Israel is a convenient receptacle for Jews to go which isn't, for example, Britain.

I can certainly believe that such thinking was once fairly prevalent, however is that really still the case?

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting.... Technically you may have a point, however it's not (in my opinion) quite that simple.

Firstly, whilst you can draw the distinction between Jews and Israeli Jews (i.e. those who settled as part of the Zionist project), the fact remains that the territory of modern day Israel has been home to people who follow Judaism for millennia, during which time they themselves have been persecuted and displaced. Personally I don't think delving into ancient history is particularly helpful in this context as it becomes a circular but X was there first argument, however it's worth mentioning as the claim that a load of Europeans simply turned up out of the blue and colonised Arab lands isn't quite the full story....

It’s not the full story but it’s a good abridgement. They ethnically cleansed Palestinians to create the state. That’s basically colonialism and I am surprised to hear people double down on it when it would be completely anathema to suggest the British should still retain control of all of Ireland, or should still operate the Raj.

Secondly, I can fully understand why Jews felt (feel) the need for a Jewish state, particularly post-1945. That "homeland" would inevitably be (or become) an ethnostate unfortunately, regardless of it's location (not that I want to see that sort of thing). Accepting the need for a Jewish state (which of course you may not), where else could it have been established?

I don’t accept the need for a Jewish state. I don’t agree that every people or ethnic group need a homeland state. That would be a preposterous thing to think, as there are something like 200 sovereign states and an order of magnitude more than that of “peoples”. Zionism is just herronvolk thinking in that respect; that the Jewish people are special, chosen, and the land is theirs by divine right.

Leaving history aside and fast-forwarding to the present, the reality is that from a Western perspective we need Israel to exist. What would happen to the balance of power in that region if it didn't?

I don’t see why that is relevant. It’s a colony, which was founded on and exists solely to commit violence against the people it displaced, and I cannot condone colonialism whether it is in our interests or not.

I can certainly believe that such thinking was once fairly prevalent, however is that really still the case?

Why do you think some conspiracists and virulent hard right people are so pro-Israel! Some antisemites are Zionist. Richard Spencer is a good example.

 

[RT4038]

I don’t accept the need for a Jewish state. I don’t agree that every people or ethnic group need a homeland state. That would be a preposterous thing to think, as there are something like 200 sovereign states and an order of magnitude more than that of “peoples”. Zionism is just herronvolk thinking in that respect; that the Jewish people are special, chosen, and the land is theirs by divine right.

Perhaps because they are tired of Europeans persecuting them (of which they have plenty of experience) and they do not want Arabs persecuting them either. They do not want to be persecuted (as they have plenty of history in the past) and the only way of ensuring that is to be a majority in a particular country.

I don’t see why that is relevant. It’s a colony, which was founded on and exists solely to commit violence against the people it displaced, and I cannot condone colonialism whether it is in our interests or not.

It is not the same as a colony of another country or Empire. They do not come from another country that they are in a majority. To suggest that Israel 'exists solely to commit violence against the people it displaced' is nonsense - it exists to provide the Jewish people with a land that they will be in the majority, and therefore much less likely to be persecuted.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps because they are tired of Europeans persecuting them (of which they have plenty of experience)

So they left Europe, ok, following…

and they do not want Arabs persecuting them either.

… right, so why did they ethnically cleanse a load of them and operate an apartheid state then?

They do not want to be persecuted (as they have plenty of history in the past) and the only way of ensuring that is to be a majority in a particular country.

It’s going swimmingly for them isn’t it?

It is not the same as a colony of another country or Empire. They do not come from another country that they are in a majority.

What does that matter?

To suggest that Israel 'exists solely to commit violence against the people it displaced' is nonsense - it exists to provide the Jewish people with a land that they will be in the majority, and therefore much less likely to be persecuted.

By ethnically cleansing the existing population. The anti Zionist Jews (note - a significant majority prior to WWII) were absolutely right in that such a state could only be created by violence and engender perpetual war. And that’s exactly what they got.

 

[RT4038]

… right, so why did they ethnically cleanse a load of them and operate an apartheid state then?

Because they do not want the existing population persecuting them. So, move them out in one way or another, so they cannot become a majority, or cause mischief within.

It’s going swimmingly for them isn’t it?

Not as bad as their history in the previous 200 years ... pogroms, concentration camps, the final solution.

By ethnically cleansing the existing population.

In our experience, the best way for a lasting colonisation - North America, Australia.....

What does that matter?

Quite a lot really - when your back is against the wall you fight hard and dirty.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because they do not want them persecuting them. So, move them out in one way or another, so they cannot become a majority, or cause mischief within.

Exactly the same justification as given for South African apartheid. Fear of rebellion against the coloniser, fear of full participation in society, shoring up rights and economic privilege for the chosen people.

It is racist and abhorrent, and if you support it or justify it you are no better than the racists who used to prop up South Africa back in the apartheid era.

Not as bad as their history in the previous 200 years ... pogroms, concentration camps, the final solution.

When we look at where Jews actually live in the world, where are Jews most likely to come to harm by being killed in the world? It’s in Israel.

Before you say “well that’s not a fair question, they don’t live in Arab countries because they’d end up the victims of persecution or genocide” - ask yourself why then, they decided to ethnically cleanse Arabs to create their own country and surround themselves with people who hate them. And in the full knowledge that this state could only be born from violence and will require endless suffering and misery for Israeli and Arab alike to maintain.

In our experience, the best way for a lasting colonisation - North America, Australia.....

Not exactly a bastion of morality is it? Israel was created long after the Victorian age of racist imperialism, and was principally a western imperial creation. We effectively created it.

Nobody is wishing for Israel to just go away and not exist (well, perhaps some antisemitic Arabs!), much less than we wish our former colonies would just “go away” but when it comes to conflict it should be remembered who is the original aggressor. There is not parity between Israeli and Palestinian in this regard.

 

[RT4038]

Exactly the same justification as given for South African apartheid. Fear of rebellion against the coloniser, fear of full participation in society, shoring up rights and economic privilege for the chosen people.

It is racist and abhorrent, and if you support it or justify it you are no better than the racists who used to prop up South Africa back in the apartheid era.

You can have your opinion, which I fully respect, but looking at South Africa now the fear of the colonisers has pretty much come true. Perhaps if you were a descendant of a coloniser living there you would have a slightly different view?

When we look at where Jews actually live in the world, where are Jews most likely to come to harm by being killed in the world? It’s in Israel.

At the moment, maybe, but that could change at any time - as the Jews have found out to their cost.

Before you say “well that’s not a fair question, they don’t live in Arab countries because they’d end up the victims of persecution or genocide” - ask yourself why then, they decided to ethnically cleanse Arabs to create their own country and surround themselves with people who hate them. And in the full knowledge that this state could only be born from violence and will require endless suffering and misery for Israeli and Arab alike to maintain.

Perhaps better to have the people who hate you outside, rather than having them mixed in with you, hating you and wanting a different way of life to you? Either way you are always in fear of them overwhelming you, whether in the Middle East or Europe (as they well know). Their cross to bear, so to speak. Doesn't say much for being a chosen people.

Not exactly a bastion of morality is it? Israel was created long after the Victorian age of racist imperialism, and was principally a western imperial creation. We effectively created it.

Morality? - what is done is done. I am making an observation on the possible motives of the Jewish people of Israel now.

Nobody is wishing for Israel to just go away and not exist (well, perhaps some antisemitic Arabs!), much less than we wish our former colonies would just “go away” but when it comes to conflict it should be remembered who is the original aggressor. There is not parity between Israeli and Palestinian in this regard.

There cannot be parity. No doubt the Israeli people look at the fate of white Southern Africans and have no desire for that to happen to them.

 

[AlterEgo]

You can have your opinion, which I fully respect, but looking at South Africa now the fear of the colonisers has pretty much come true. Perhaps if you were a descendant of a coloniser living there you would have a slightly different view?

I’m married to one and hence half of my family are white South Africans. Does that count?

Perhaps better to have the people who hate you outside, rather than having them mixed in with you, hating you and wanting a different way of life to you?

Ah yes a justification of apartheid and segregation again. A view which would have been passé as outright bigotry 30 years ago, let alone today.

There cannot be parity. No doubt the Israeli people look at the fate of white Southern Africans and have no desire for that to happen to them.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Belperpete]

Perhaps better to have the people who hate you outside, rather than having them mixed in with you, hating you and wanting a different way of life to you? Either way you are always in fear of them overwhelming you, whether in the Middle East or Europe (as they well kn

There cannot be parity. No doubt the Israeli people look at the fate of white Southern Africans and have no desire for that to happen to them.

That does seem to be the Israeli perspective. I am not sure whether you are merely stating the Israeli perspective, or justifying it. However, it leaves the Palestinians as second class citizens in their own land, effectively apartheid, surely an unacceptable situation.

To my mind, the ideal solution would be a Northern Ireland type solution, where both sides have equal rights and the ability to veto measures unacceptable to the other. However, I can't see that ever being acceptable to the Zionists, and questionable whether it would be acceptable to the Palestinians. In lieu of which a two state solution is surely the best alternative. And by that I mean a true two state solution, not the Palestinians living in some kind of Israeli controlled prison camp.

 

[RT4038]

I’m married to one and hence half of my family are white South Africans. Does that count?

Snap. So you'll know that your view is not universally agreed with then.

Ah yes a justification of apartheid and segregation again. A view which would have been passé as outright bigotry 30 years ago, let alone today.

Well you can be myopic and think people will live in harmony, but Jews have plenty of experience (pogroms, concentration camps and final solution) that they will likely experience the opposite. I expect they get tired of being told they are bigoted, when they have been on the receiving end of bigotry for hundreds of years from the selfsame people?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Probably about as much as you!

That does seem to be the Israeli perspective. I am not sure whether you are merely stating the Israeli perspective, or justifying it. However, it leaves the Palestinians as second class citizens in their own land, effectively apartheid, surely an unacceptable situation.

To my mind, the ideal solution would be a Northern Ireland type solution, where both sides have equal rights and the ability to veto measures unacceptable to the other. However, I can't see that ever being acceptable to the Zionists, and questionable whether it would be acceptable to the Palestinians. In lieu of which a two state solution is surely the best alternative. And by that I mean a true two state solution, not the Palestinians living in some kind of Israeli controlled prison camp.

In theory you may well be right, but is either option ever going to work out in practice? With (at least some) Palestinians vowing to throw the Jewish people into the sea [ and have done since the birth of the state of Israel ], how are the Jews ever going to trust them to be peaceful neighbours?

If they live in Europe it is the Final Solution, and if they live in the Middle East it is the Arabs wanting to throw them out. No wonder they act like they do.

And I quite understand the Palestinian perspective too. I am not sure a NI type solution would work, bearing in mind the different cultures it is not quite like NI. Don't suppose the Palestinians really want a two state solution either, they want the entire land and the Jews out (or a powerless minority).

Deadlock....

 

[AlterEgo]

Snap. So you'll know that your view is not universally agreed with then.

Yes, I’m familiar with South Africa. I go often, and while the level of racism towards black and coloured people from whites would still shock most Brits, I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone so unpleasant to suggest apartheid was justifiable, much less something to be replicated in 2024.

 

[DustyBin]

It’s not the full story but it’s a good abridgement. They ethnically cleansed Palestinians to create the state. That’s basically colonialism and I am surprised to hear people double down on it when it would be completely anathema to suggest the British should still retain control of all of Ireland, or should still operate the Raj.

Again, technically yes they did, but you're disregarding the preceding civil war in which there were two aggressors.... It's not analogous with the examples of straightforward colonialism you've provided.

I don’t accept the need for a Jewish state. I don’t agree that every people or ethnic group need a homeland state. That would be a preposterous thing to think, as there are something like 200 sovereign states and an order of magnitude more than that of “peoples”. Zionism is just herronvolk thinking in that respect; that the Jewish people are special, chosen, and the land is theirs by divine right.

I similarly don't believe that every group of people need their own homeland, and nor do I believe that Jewish people have a "divine right", or that they are "chosen", "special" etc. etc. I accept that early Zionism was founded on these very beliefs (herronvolk is a slightly unfortunate word choice IMO), however post-1945, I think it's entirely understandable why they felt they needed their own state for the "never again" philosophy to become reality.

I don’t see why that is relevant. It’s a colony, which was founded on and exists solely to commit violence against the people it displaced, and I cannot condone colonialism whether it is in our interests or not.

It's relevant because that's the realpolitik. See above for why Israel was founded; the (two-way) violence is an unfortunate (if arguably inevitable in hindsight) consequence.

Why do you think some conspiracists and virulent hard right people are so pro-Israel! Some antisemites are Zionist. Richard Spencer is a good example.

You're talking about people with fairly extreme views here though. They don't represent the majority of right-wing people.

 

[Belperpete]

In theory you may well be right, but is either option ever going to work out in practice? With (at least some) Palestinians vowing to throw the Jewish people into the sea [ and have done since the birth of the state of Israel ], how are the Jews ever going to trust them to be peaceful neighbours?
Deadlock....

Likewise how are the Palestinians ever going to trust the Israelis to be peaceful neighbours. Even now, the Israeli government is considering annexing even more Palestinian land for settlers.

If there is never going to be a solution, as you say deadlock - which in practice means never ending violence. And not just in the Middle East, because it is the West's unquestioning support for Israel, seemingly regardless of whatever attrocities the IDF commit, that stokes anti Western attitudes in arab countries, Iran, and elsewhere.

Currently Israel's only solution appears to be to make life so unpleasant for the Palestinians, that they somehow "go away". Steadily annexing ever more of their land for settlers, while confining the Palestinians into ever more congested and unpleasant prison camps.

It is surely in the West's own interests to put real pressure on Israel to end this. I really do not understand why we continue to be so blatantly one-sided.

Northern Ireland seemed a similarly intractable problem when I was young. No way would the two sides ever trust each other - Protestant politicians even refused to be in the same room. It was only resolved when real pressure was put on both sides to resolve it. And a large part of that included ending what was effectively an apartheid system, where the Catholics were treated as second class citizens, with sub standard housing and the worst jobs. Because when people have a decent standard of living, they are naturally less inclined to violence. Which is a lesson the Israeli government needs to learn with respect to the Palestinians.

 

[RT4038]

Likewise how are the Palestinians ever going to trust the Israelis to be peaceful neighbours.

Probably only when the Palestinians accept that Israel is going to exist and it is going to be a Jewish state.

Even now, the Israeli government is considering annexing even more Palestinian land for settlers.

I should imagine that a game plan might be to obtain as much land as possible, on the basis that some kind of compromise will have to be made in the future and something will have to be handed back?

If there is never going to be a solution, as you say deadlock - which in practice means never ending violence. And not just in the Middle East, because it is the West's unquestioning support for Israel, seemingly regardless of whatever attrocities the IDF commit, that stokes anti Western attitudes in arab countries, Iran, and elsewhere.

West's unquestioning support for Israel, Arab unquestioning support for Palestinians. Works both ways. Deadlock.

Currently Israel's only solution appears to be to make life so unpleasant for the Palestinians, that they somehow "go away". Steadily annexing ever more of their land for settlers, while confining the Palestinians into ever more congested and unpleasant prison camps.

What else can they do, at present, apart from compromising the continued existence of the Jewish state?

Northern Ireland seemed a similarly intractable problem when I was young. No way would the two sides ever trust each other - Protestant politicians even refused to be in the same room. It was only resolved when real pressure was put on both sides to resolve it. And a large part of that included ending what was effectively an apartheid system, where the Catholics were treated as second class citizens, with sub standard housing and the worst jobs. Because when people have a decent standard of living, they are naturally less inclined to violence. Which is a lesson the Israeli government needs to learn with respect to the Palestinians.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue has only similarities to the NI situation; it is not the same. Resolution of the NI situation had as much to do with the economic rise of the Republic of Ireland as any 'real pressure put on both sides'. I daresay that when Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt et al rise to the same economic level of Israel then the conflict will ease as it has done in NI [not that it is far away from the surface]. There seems a real inequality in wealth between Arab states - if they were really interested in resolving these tensions I am sure some redistribution could be done on the same lines as the EU? But of course if you start off with the premise that Israel shouldn't exist and the Jews should be thrown into the sea......

However, NI was not born out of quite the same history as the Jewish state, and they are compared only at some distance from the detail.

 

[nw1]

West's unquestioning support for Israel, Arab unquestioning support for Palestinians. Works both ways. Deadlock.

Why does the West have unquestioning support for the Israeli government though? And should it?

What the Arab world does is neither here nor there. The West should set a good example and take the lead in acting dispassionately.

The West appears to display only very muted condemnation for the bombing campaign.

But the question is, why? It doesn't even make sense to me in terms of Western self-interest. By appearing to take sides in this conflict, rather than taking a more dispassionate, non-partisan line, we leave ourselves open to acts of terrorism committed as retribution.

 

[778]

The Israeli-Palestinian issue has only similarities to the NI situation; it is not the same. Resolution of the NI situation had as much to do with the economic rise of the Republic of Ireland as any 'real pressure put on both sides'. I daresay that when Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt et al rise to the same economic level of Israel then the conflict will ease as it has done in NI [not that it is far away from the surface]. There seems a real inequality in wealth between Arab states - if they were really interested in resolving these tensions I am sure some redistribution could be done on the same lines as the EU? But of course if you start off with the premise that Israel shouldn't exist and the Jews should be thrown into the sea......

However, NI was not born out of quite the same history as the Jewish state, and they are compared only at some distance from the detail.

The Israel-Palestinian issue probably has more in common with the conflict in the former Yugoslavia than the situation in Ireland.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jun 2024 ==

Yes, I’m familiar with South Africa. I go often, and while the level of racism towards black and coloured people from whites would still shock most Brits, I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone so unpleasant to suggest apartheid was justifiable, much less something to be replicated in 2024.

To be fair quite a lot of white South Africans did oppose apartheid.

 

[Yew]

But the question is, why? It doesn't even make sense to me in terms of Western self-interest. By appearing to take sides in this conflict, rather than taking a more dispassionate, non-partisan line, we leave ourselves open to acts of terrorism committed as retribution.

Because any criticisim of the political actions of the govenrment of Israel, no matter how measured and reasoned, will result in smears of Antisemitisim from the Israeli far-right; which can then be leveraged by political opponents at home.

 

[RT4038]

Why does the West have unquestioning support for the Israeli government though? And should it?

That is a long and complicated answer. I hazard a guess that it is in the interests of 'the West' to have a strong Israel and for there to be no credible threat to the Jewish state. The reasoning behind this being that the establishment of Israel is a Western creation in atonement for their behaviour (pogroms, ghettos, concentration camps and the Final Solution) towards Jewish people over a considerable period. The West has encouraged Jews to move to Israel and has no desire, in the event of a threat to its existence, to be either (a) having to assimilate that quantity of Jewish people back into 'the West' [knowing that anti-semitism is only just under the surface] and/or (b) complicit in Arabs delivering their versions of such Pogroms and Solutions - 'Throwing them into the sea'. Add in that Jewish people have considerable influence in the upper echelons of some Western countries, and (as pointed out in #1168) nobody wants to be labelled anti-semitic (to which there is a very fine line, poorly defined) because of the deep discomfort over the historical actions of 'the West' towards the Jewish people for the 300? years prior to 1945.

What the Arab world does is neither here nor there. The West should set a good example and take the lead in acting dispassionately.

Bearing in mind the above, it is all to do with what the Arab world does, and in particular recognition of the right to exist of Israel and as a Jewish state. Until that question is settled there can be no peace. Harsh on Arabs, but pushing the Jews back into the sea is about as likely as Germans getting their ancestral lands in East Prussia back.

The West appears to display only very muted condemnation for the bombing campaign.

But the question is, why? It doesn't even make sense to me in terms of Western self-interest. By appearing to take sides in this conflict, rather than taking a more dispassionate, non-partisan line, we leave ourselves open to acts of terrorism committed as retribution.

I suspect that 'the West' does not really have any choice, because they know Hamas was threatening the security of Israel, and Hamas and Palestinians are not easily separable. They are already way, way in deep - going back to the setting up of Israel in the first place, a creation of 'the West'. But we are where we are. I think it is much deeper and complicated than the surface of the current conflict, and naive to think otherwise.

And yes, this is all a bit harsh on the Arab Palestinians. Their future has been sacrificed by 'the West' from the turn of the last century, in order to try and resolve a vexing problem there. I fully understand the Palestinians viewpoint. Deadlock.

 

[DustyBin]

That is a long and complicated answer. I hazard a guess that it is in the interests of 'the West' to have a strong Israel and for there to be no credible threat to the Jewish state. The reasoning behind this being that the establishment of Israel is a Western creation in atonement for their behaviour (pogroms, ghettos, concentration camps and the Final Solution) towards Jewish people over a considerable period. The West has encouraged Jews to move to Israel and has no desire, in the event of a threat to its existence, to be either (a) having to assimilate that quantity of Jewish people back into 'the West' [knowing that anti-semitism is only just under the surface] and/or (b) complicit in Arabs delivering their versions of such Pogroms and Solutions - 'Throwing them into the sea'. Add in that Jewish people have considerable influence in the upper echelons of some Western countries, and (as pointed out in #1168) nobody wants to be labelled anti-semitic (to which there is a very fine line, poorly defined) because of the deep discomfort over the historical actions of 'the West' towards the Jewish people for the 300? years prior to 1945.


Bearing in mind the above, it is all to do with what the Arab world does, and in particular recognition of the right to exist of Israel and as a Jewish state. Until that question is settled there can be no peace. Harsh on Arabs, but pushing the Jews back into the sea is about as likely as Germans getting their ancestral lands in East Prussia back.


I suspect that 'the West' does not really have any choice, because they know Hamas was threatening the security of Israel, and Hamas and Palestinians are not easily separable. They are already way, way in deep - going back to the setting up of Israel in the first place, a creation of 'the West'. But we are where we are. I think it is much deeper and complicated than the surface of the current conflict, and naive to think otherwise.

And yes, this is all a bit harsh on the Arab Palestinians. Their future has been sacrificed by 'the West' from the turn of the last century, in order to try and resolve a vexing problem there. I fully understand the Palestinians viewpoint. Deadlock.

That’s quite a good basic explanation in my opinion.

In regard to the sentence in bold in your final paragraph, to what extent have the Palestinians made the best of the hand they were dealt? (Genuine question, as I often see “not at all” cited as the reason some people have no sympathy whatsoever).