Palestine

[Butts]

I'm suprised no one has mentioned the latest outbreak of violence in this region with rockets flying one way and the other. There appears to be an Egyptian brokered ceasefire in place but the situation is still fragile.

Do members feel Israel was intimidated by the combined Fatah and Hamas military might and this was the reason they agreed

Or do members feel Israel has the technical and military capability to enter Palestine "at will" as they did in 2009.

Poor old "Balfour" - are we ultimately responsible for this mess

 

[Trog]

As with all these things it will be a small number of extremists on each side causing the trouble. It is the bulk of the population on both sides who just want to be left alone to get on with their lives that I feel sorry for.

 

[Butts]

As with all these things it will be a small number of extremists on each side causing the trouble. It is the bulk of the population on both sides who just want to be left alone to get on with their lives that I feel sorry for.

As is ever the case in most of these conflicts

Wasn't the Middle East a lot stabler when it was ruled by the British and French as most of it was ?

 

[jon0844]

Isn't there an election in January 2013 in Israel?

I do have to wonder if the PM might just want to keep the tensions high, or take stronger action than otherwise might be taken..

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do members feel Israel was intimidated by the combined Fatah and Hamas military might and this was the reason they agreed ......Or do members feel Israel has the technical and military capability to enter Palestine "at will" as they did in 2009.

I feel that Israel are not at all intimidated by any combination whatsoever of Fatah and Hamas, whilst they have the wherewithal to use their nuclear weapons as a last and final option in a "doomsday" scenario, where Israel would be threatened with annihilation. If anything, the Israeli military will be privately very annoyed that their planned ground offensive to follow up the recent "softening-up" of Gaza has had to be put on hold and are hoping that Islamic Jihad decide to continue with a numerically large number of rocket attacks on parts of Israel which will give them the justification to put these plans into action.

Israel would have been somewhat disheartened by the current attitude of their once staunch ally, Turkey. Also, one never really knows how much pressure a Democratic American establishment will cause to be put on Israel, subject to the prevailing American agenda concerning Syria and the Middle East.

 

[Oswyntail]

....Wasn't the Middle East a lot stabler when it was ruled by the British and French as most of it was ?

This was arguably the case with virtually all ex-colonial territories. Useless to speculate, I know, but I wonder what sort of job a colonial power would make operating under modern expectations of behaviour.
As for the topic, I feel most of the relevant countries behave like Harry Enfield's scousers, ready to start a fight over anything. One must pray that their leaders are (contrary to appearances) sensible enough not to let things go over the edge

 

[alanf]

Don't worry the idiot Blair is trying to sort it out. Hopefully he will decide to live there i despise this man. I think he is the reason this country isnt as safe as it used to be.

Alan

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Don't worry the idiot Blair is trying to sort it out.

I wonder if Cherie has remembered to "dust-off" and pack his WMD detector that his friend George W. gave him for his birthday a few years ago..

 

[Trog]

I wonder what sort of job a colonial power would make operating under modern expectations of behaviour

Do the Natives have to play nicely too?


Falklands, Gibraltar etc generally seem to be doing a better than a lot of the countries where we were asked to put down the white mans burden and go home.

I also believe that not a single native of the British Antarctic Territory or of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands has ever uttered a single word of complaint about how we run things down there.

Mind you the natives of Pitcairn island can be a bit inclined to mutiny.

 

[kylemore]

Wasn't the Middle East a lot stabler when it was ruled by the British and French as most of it was ?

Well they only took over the former Turkish Empire after WW1 and ran things for 20-30 years or so. One minute you had Churchill bombing the Kurds in 1920s Iraq the next Jewish "settler" terrorists killing British soldiers by the score in 1940s Palestine (Just after the same British soldiers had liberated the Nazi camps!).
I'd hardly call that "Stable"

 

[Butts]

Well they only took over the former Turkish Empire after WW1 and ran things for 20-30 years or so. One minute you had Churchill bombing the Kurds in 1920s Iraq the next Jewish "settler" terrorists killing British soldiers by the score in 1940s Palestine (Just after the same British soldiers had liberated the Nazi camps!).
I'd hardly call that "Stable"

It looks a lot stabler than it has been since WWII

 

[kylemore]

I also believe that not a single native of the British Antarctic Territory or of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands has ever uttered a single word of complaint about how we run things down there.

.

I believe that after the Great 1902 Penquin Massacre the Natives were much more peaceable.

As Churchill said "I do not understand this squeamishnes regarding the use of Gatling Guns against the native hoards"

 

[LE Greys]

All I have to go on is the news coverage, of course, but it looks as though both sides are acting like two packs of wolves fighting over a single territory. The Israelis have a tendancy to use sledgehammers to crack nuts, while Hamas are effectively using the Gazan population as human shields (well, they did vote for them!). If both sides could back off a bit, then there would be a chance of progress.

 

[Butts]

Do the Natives have to play nicely too?


Falklands, Gibraltar etc generally seem to be doing a better than a lot of the countries where we were asked to put down the white mans burden and go home.

I also believe that not a single native of the British Antarctic Territory or of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands has ever uttered a single word of complaint about how we run things down there.

Mind you the natives of Pitcairn island can be a bit inclined to mutiny.

Is anyone going to come on and say that New Zealand or Australia would have been advanced as they are today if the Maoris and Aboriginies had been left to it

 

[yorkie]

Is anyone going to come on and say that New Zealand or Australia would have been advanced as they are today if the Maoris and Aboriginies had been left to it

I don't understand the question, nor it's relevance, and it depends on how you define "advanced", and is being "advanced" necessarily a good thing?

There are still some ancient tribes around and yes they bloody well should be left to it.

 

[Butts]

I don't understand the question, nor it's relevance, and it depends on how you define "advanced", and is being "advanced" necessarily a good thing?

There are still some ancient tribes around and yes they bloody well should be left to it.

The question relates to the way a lot of former colonies fell apart when given Independence. Hence the idea that the Middle East may have been more peaceful if it was still under been under European Control and a lot of the post war problems averted.

The second part is the suggested reason that industrialised powers have generally raised the standard of living and economic prospects of the inhabitants.

As you correctly identified tribes are still being found in the Amazon Basin - this is probably what New Zealand and Australia would have been like without European Intervention.

As for "Ancient Tribes" I agree you should leave "Greenback" and his Countrymen to it

 

[Greenback]

As Yorkie says, it really depends on whether you think the definition of advanced is the same as the capitalist consumer society that we have. Some may argue that the American indians would have preferred to have been left in peace rather than have their lifestyles destroyed, their traditional lands taken from them, and other values imposed on them, largely by force. It is certainly a point of view that I have sympathy for.

 

[Butts]

As Yorkie says, it really depends on whether you think the definition of advanced is the same as the capitalist consumer society that we have. Some may argue that the American indians would have preferred to have been left in peace rather than have their lifestyles destroyed, their traditional lands taken from them, and other values imposed on them, largely by force. It is certainly a point of view that I have sympathy for.

That is rather an idealistic viewpoint but perhaps not without merit. As no one asked I suppose we will never know the answer.

You could argue the same about the Roman occupation of Britain , which meets all the criteria you described as to the treatment of the native population.

Would you prefer to live in a Tent in Llanelli with none of lifes modern conveniences ?

 

[Greenback]

That is rather an idealistic viewpoint but perhaps not without merit. As no one asked I suppose we will never know the answer.

You could argue the same about the Roman occupation of Britain , which meets all the criteria you described as to the treatment of the native population.

Would you prefer to live in a Tent in Llanelli with none of lifes modern conveniences ?

It is more difficult to do without modern conveniences when you have gotten used tot hem over many years! These conveniences, though, are rapidly depleting the natural resources of the world.

It is, of course, a long standing debate 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' - and I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. I do think, however, it is a bit too simplistic to state that European colonisation has improved the lives of native ethnic groups. I wonder what a native Maori, with knowledge of the future up to say 2000, would have chosen for themselves and their race if they had had a choice of whether to accept European lifestyle and values?

 

[Butts]

It is more difficult to do without modern conveniences when you have gotten used tot hem over many years! These conveniences, though, are rapidly depleting the natural resources of the world.

It is, of course, a long standing debate 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' - and I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. I do think, however, it is a bit too simplistic to state that European colonisation has improved the lives of native ethnic groups. I wonder what a native Maori, with knowledge of the future up to say 2000, would have chosen for themselves and their race if they had had a choice of whether to accept European lifestyle and values?

The Maori mey have been thinking perhaps we should have stayed in Polynesia - I wonder if they displaced anyone already there ?

Have no fear the angst ridden Australasian "chattering classes" are doing their best to atone for the "Colonial Crimes" of their forebearers in the usual patronising manner with half-hearted gestures that no one really believes in.

 

[SS4]

Whilst Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map there can never be peace. Israel may be going too far but it's hard to tell with partisan news sources. It also seems that their religious beliefs make it that much harder for peace to succeed as neither side wishes to lose face by backing down. Anwar Sadat was assassinated for recognising Israel as a sovereign state iirc.

The history of warfare has changed a lot too; conquering territory, destroying the enemy's armed forces and deposing his government is no longer enough to win a war. Some "Civilians" and surviving army personnel - both domestic and foreign (especially when there is a common bond like ethnicity, religion or politics) - go underground and use guerilla warfare and/or terrorism at home and abroad to continue the war.
The two ways to win are a (near) total genocide which is rightly unacceptable or to win over the hearts and minds of the population which is very difficult in the Middle East.

 

[Butts]

Whilst Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map there can never be peace. Israel may be going too far but it's hard to tell with partisan news sources. It also seems that their religious beliefs make it that much harder for peace to succeed as neither side wishes to lose face by backing down. Anwar Sadat was assassinated for recognising Israel as a sovereign state iirc.

The history of warfare has changed a lot too; conquering territory, destroying the enemy's armed forces and deposing his government is no longer enough to win a war. Some "Civilians" and surviving army personnel - both domestic and foreign (especially when there is a common bond like ethnicity, religion or politics) - go underground and use guerilla warfare and/or terrorism at home and abroad to continue the war.
The two ways to win are a (near) total genocide which is rightly unacceptable or to win over the hearts and minds of the population which is very difficult in the Middle East.

Right on..

I thought you were from Birmingham not Golders Green

 

[yorkie]

Whilst Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map there can never be peace.....

Odd way of wording it when Israel won't even allow a state of Palestine to appear on a map! I think a bit of research into the history would come in useful!

 

[Butts]

Odd way of wording it when Israel won't even allow a state of Palestine to appear on a map! I think a bit of research into the history would come in useful!

Unfortunately most Middle Eastern Countries want to obliterate Israel off the map !!!

You cannot enter most of them with an Israeli stamp in your Passport.

And remember Israel is a Democracy unlike most of it's neighbours

 

[Lampshade]

As is ever the case in most of these conflicts

Wasn't the Middle East a lot stabler when it was ruled by the British and French as most of it was ?

Not really, it was Ottoman Empire until after WWI, then Palestine/Transjordan was run as a League of Nations mandate, not as a colony.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I note that Hamas made their usual "Victory over Israel" statement as soon as the cease-fire was announced.

 

[Butts]

I note that Hamas made their usual "Victory over Israel" statement as soon as the cease-fire was announced.

A bit of a hollow victory for the civilians that lost their lives for no appreciable gain

 

[jon0844]

I note that Hamas made their usual "Victory over Israel" statement as soon as the cease-fire was announced.

Ridiculous for either side to claim a victory, when a ceasefire means nothing; things could (and will one day) spark up yet again and the whole cycle repeats.

The only victory will come when both sides compromise and accept the existence of each other, borders are opened up and people can freely move from one to the other.

 

[Trog]

I wonder what a native Maori, with knowledge of the future up to say 2000, would have chosen for themselves and their race if they had had a choice of whether to accept European lifestyle and values?

New Zealand is a bit of a special case in that colonisation there was by treaty (although a somewhat imperfect one) rather than outright invasion.

So the Maori were given something of a choice, even if they did not have knowledge of the future.

The treaty from the limited reading I have done seems to have offered the Maori some protection from the worst excessess of the incoming settlers in its early years. Then faded into the back ground, until the more equal ethos of more modern times allowed the Maori to start going to court and saying "What about clause X then?" with some chance of success.

 

[LE Greys]

Ridiculous for either side to claim a victory, when a ceasefire means nothing; things could (and will one day) spark up yet again and the whole cycle repeats.

The only victory will come when both sides compromise and accept the existence of each other, borders are opened up and people can freely move from one to the other.

Exactly, but neither side can. As I said earlier, two packs of wolves fighting over the same territory.