Post by Oliver on Jun 15, 2015 20:02:12 GMT
Thank you everybody for your graciousness. No apology needed at all Antaine. I understand the problems of e-mails and posts, and that if we were discussing in the "real world", well passion and conviction are understood and felt in their right place. E-mails/posts don't put everything across in the same way do they and misunderstandings often occur. But I have a kind of picture of the discussion now, if you know what I mean,
I reflecting today that in my life I could only think of one really positive "view" on Israel presented to me in the public domain I've seen. It was about technology, and it was on the internet (BBC I think).
But on the other side I've been aware my whole life of pictures of Gaza and news items on the tele and posters of Palestinian Solidarity meetings in the streets. I don't think I'm the only one to have the "picture" I sketched even though I did extrapolate out it a bit too much. I am aware there do exist very educated and informed people that have a similar one? Why do I have it? It is in the main picture in the public domain, right? why is it-I think is-then?
From the picture I have, made up of public domain and private bits I've come across in books/Wikipedia/films........
(Antaine sorry just to say I'm just using your post to bounce thoughts off, I know its not attractive to do so as it has the effect especially over digital text to over scrutinise or pick at someone. Its probably laziness but helps me give a frame.......)
I can't see that "the people of Gaza seem more interested in provoking Israel and playing the victim afterwards". I see anguish with military equality, which equals breeding ground for terrorism and I hear "playing the victim afterwards" as well not true and maybe a wall put up to prevent seeing the anguish?
When I read "In regards to settlements, yes Israel has a tendency to annex land for its troubles after it has already been attacked. I believe they did this in the Arab-Israeli conflicts too." I am abashed-if that's the right word- I think its incredulous. "annex land for its troubles" - this is not a standard military tactic. This is a near insidious military tactic. It is one done by someone with great force, who can if they will. This is a terrorism causing tactic. And I can't see how people see this is valid in ANY context? Plus when I see it, I think there are many things you can do for your troubles but taking land? That's imperialism. Annexing land? Imperialism hides behind "just" reasons when it takes land.
"Then you focus on these supposed extreme rabbis in the Israeli army, yet seem to be oblivious to the vast amounts of extremists in Gaza who are not just clerics?" When I think of this I can't help think of the disparity. I mean Israel is a Western style liberal democracy right in 2015 and there are not "supposed" Rabbs but actual official Rabbis of the Israeli army, I've read I think two to three Rabbis statements , saying things like "the difference between a Jewish soul and a non Jewish soul is the same as between a man and a cow".
This is real! I know Israel's situation compared to other Western countries is a different kettle of fish but this is totally, totally bad! I understand somewhat the dynamic of the country and situation and how these statements could be made. I wonder if these Rabbis were struck off/ somethings making me doubt it?
"Your reasoning that because Gaza has suffered more casualties that it must be the victim is shamefully dishonest. Statistics are useless unless you can say why they are the way they are. Have you considered it is because Israel actually bothers to defend its citizens, where as people in Gaza are happy to let their's die and then shed crocodile tears talking about how they died martyrs?" I don't see that?
"The government and military of Gaza show no signs of people in anguish. They show characteristics of blood thirsty savages who are constantly asking for war, but then because docile little pets when the media decide to show up. Also, if your misery is brought on by your own stupidity, don't blame anyone but yourself." That's sounds unfair.
"Saying Israel have no interest in peace is the biggest farce yet. They have constantly come to the table with terms, while Gaza has been quick to storm away in a huff if all its demands weren't met." I can't picture that.
"If Arab states stop provoking Israel, Israel will have no excuse to attack, and the US would not be able to show solidarity with Israel in any way." To me that doesn't make sense. If Israel was somewhere in South America it would still be expedient to be an ally with the Superpower. The Jewish community seem very organised in the states, and frankly the Irish should have mobilised the Irish Americans for the same purpose years ago.
"but if you think that no Arab state could ever get one then that is extremely naive." - I don't think its not an impossibility but I'm aware of Israel's intelligence service, its ally of Superpower, and the specialist materials involved in WMDs, and I think this is the highest priority on Israel's list. They're on top of it. To my picture, it looks like its naïve to think an Arab power could likely get one.
Why shouldn't Europe remain neutral? Why should we run to the aid of fools are continuously bring their own misery on themselves? "Reflecting on what breeds terrorism, I think this is unfair. On Europe....I think one country should break ranks. Its very unlikely this will happen but I think if the Palestinians pursued a different course I think there's an outside chance a European state could break ranks, to my mind I'm thinking Sweden or someone like that just an outside chance. Israel are very afraid of that and wouldn't let it happen but I do sense a weakness there.
I think European communities and individuals should get involved by financing community development/self-government initiatives in both Israel and Palestine, plus initiatives highlighting the complexes of terrorism/nationalism etc.
"Gaza has had ample opportunity to practice self-governance; and they used it to support anti-Israeli groups, resulting in the current situation.
Given that Hamas and their ilk run Gaza with an Iron fist, I don't think democracy is looking like a viable option. "I think "its a whole syndrome not unique, shouldn't be blamed for it as its part of a syndrome. They need help out of that trap.
(Something else is that Irish nationalism could be proved to be imperialistic in two senses. One in that it failed to recognise the ethnicity/identity of the Ulster British and their right to remain so, and so offer a framework in which they could remain so within an all Ireland state. The Ulster British had and have every right to resist such an idea. Secondly, irish nationalism saw its aims to take over a British state apparatus which had"imperialised" over the communities of Ireland, and once gained Irish nationalism furthered its imperialisation over the communities of Ireland creating the the most centralised governments going, with little to no local government. I read there were few exceptions in A.E and Connolly who wanted to dismantle the imperialist apparatus and restore power to the communities of Ireland in anew government structure) I'm convinced modern nationalism is imperialistic, it has an underlying adulation of the state. And the state as the nation, not the state as something the nation has.
Just want to say too-there's no need but I'm not Pro-Palestine or Pro-Israel, I think their bad terms. We're all for both of them
But just challengingly, I might not be completely pro-whatever the power centre in Isreal is? Is it Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or both? Of course I'm Pro-the dis-empowered communities and people in them, but for me after looking at nationalism and its adulation of a centralised state, and the people that profit by this. I think it would be a sort of expression of what I'm currently thinking to say I'm not Pro-London, Pro-Dublin, Pro-New York/Washington, and Pro- Tel aviv/Jerusalem?
I'll hopefully be back at the forum at the weekend,
Peace to all