If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
We have also agreed that the USA and UK have done invasive acts against Iraq.
What must happen at some point is for someone to stay "stop". What's done is done, now we must look to the future and make peace. And the Palestinians in the West Bank will be given a land. That is what Israel really wants anyway. Certainly Judaism has a doctrine of peace, not of war.
One thing to disagree with actions by a government or army. Another thing is to hate. Condemn their actions by all means but do not hate them or their people.
But the fact remains that at State level (the one that counts) the Israeli government is actually treated as worthy of respect and as a legitimate body while Hamas is treated as an unspeakable terrorist group that must not even be spoken to... not even after it was legitimately elected to power in democratic elections.
I don't know about others but that pisses me off no end. For as long as it continues its hideous actions Israel ought to be treated as the brutal pariah state it is. Either that or we welcome Hamas to the international fold and roll out the red carpet for them.
Who's saying its an innocent party? What I'm saying and Earl Purple seems to be saying, is that its not the only player and to single it out for criticism seems to be missing the context of why its doing those actions...
Who said anything about hating (apart from you)?
Syria's treated as a legitmate Government. It's a player.
Though actually I look at all the people involved in the conflict. Its naive to say just because something is not a Government its not involved and its actions don't have an affect on what's going on.
But why is Israel worse than Sudan or the Russians in Chechyna (also an elected Government)? Why should Israel be a pariah state and not Russia?
Earl Purple is making out that Israel are acting in a purely defensive role. They're not, not by a longstretch.
Alittle strange that both the further edges of both left and right wing politics seem to have similar concerns about Israel - and historically something against a certain religion.
Although, of course, that has nothing to do with it...
What does the left "historically have" against a "certain religion"?
I think that's part of it (though to be fair I don't think that's either Blagsta or Aladdin's view - I reserve comments on others who think the Jews were nomads)
I also think its because Israel is an open society (relatively) so it easy for journos to report. Its a lot more difficult to get into (and survive) Chechyna and Sudan. It's also a bit of knee-jerk anti-Americanism. Its also an unwillingness to understand that war is brutal and a bit of simplistic thinking.
And some of its probably fair criticism...
As far as the ME conflict is concerned, we have one side which is given the biggest military aid in human history and full support from most of the most powerful and influential countries on earth (and nothing stronger than 'regret' from the more 'critical' nations amongst that group) to carry out atrocities, crimes and abuses, and the other side which is constantly demonised and demanded to unconditionally stop all violence and expect fuck all in return.
That is the reality of the situation. And for as long as we allow Israel to get away with what it is getting away there will never be peace.
Who says its unconditional? Most Governments accept Israel should pull out of the occupied territories (even the US calls them occupied territories)
However its naive to think they're going to do so when most of its neighbours don't recognise its right to exist and are still attacking Israel (as they have been doing since its foundation). Given the history of Judaism (especially in the last sixty-seventy years) its not beyond the realms of possibilities that they might be a bit nervous about reducing their defences.
Israel said no. Because it wants to keep large chunks of the West Bank.
Let's be honest here. No other nation has been able to flout international law and UN resolutions for so long and with so little consequence. The ball is and it has always been on Israel's court. Even Hamas has said quite a few times now (though you wouldn't see it reported much) that it would be prepared to abandon violence for good if Israel would contemplate returning the stolen land.
Israel shouldn't do that first and then expect the others to comply. Everything should be on the table at the same time. But Israel needs to agree on principle to it- something which it has not done once in 40 years.
Well, there's that, but the IDF (not sure about now) used to be quite 'rogue' and would kill at will. There was a British Journalist killed a few years ago - that at an inquest was found to be unlawfully killed - yet the Israeli government / IDF have decided not to punish anyone.
Does that mean Britain are equally guilty for not pressing charges? (Maybe they are).
What's that got to do with Israel?
Like the UK, Israel has a legal system which requires proof because conviction. In a war situation it is not enough to prove that someone pulled the trigger, to count as murder they had to know they were not under any threat, and you have to prove that. These things can be hard to prove, how ever nice it would be for justice to be served at all times.
The man who shot the journalist has admitted to it and would not even allow the IDF to attempt a "cover-up". Presumably though he feels guilty about what he has done.
Pre-1967 the West Bank was part of Jordan. Nobody is suggesting that this land is returned to Jordan, instead it will become an independent state, and I think even Palestinians are not expecting to have West Jerusalem returned.
In forming such a land, some residents will have to be displaced. That would be mainly Jewish settlers (unless they were given the option of living under Palestinian rule, which in my opinion should be an option without them getting shot at). A few Palestinians may also get displaced (or have to remain under Israeli rule). That's just the way it is.
The border should be a sensible one, not necessarily the 1967 one, because it should be attempted with the fewest displacements possible. And of course West Jerusalem will remain under Israeli rule. It should have been made part of Israel in the first place.
By the way, most of you have probably never been there. Large areas of the West Bank are pretty much "wasteland" and it is on these that the settlements were built, and in many cases the land was purchased legitimately from its occupiers.
Did you know, by the way, that during the first Gulf War, many Kuwaitis are Palestinian (well from the same sect of Islam as Palestinians anyway). Obviously some of them attempted to take refuge from Kuwait and sought to go to Jordan but Jordan wouldn't take them, however Israel did actually accept many of them to settle in the West Bank... They were not all given permanent residence and many did return to Kuwait later but at least they were allowed in as refugees. Some, who had families already in Palestine, were allowed to remain.