Gaza Situation: Opinions

[Jono]

I realise that in the past posting a thread about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been tantamount to pulling the pin out a live grenade. However, I think we can all agree this board could do with some activity.

About the reporting: Am I the only one who thinks the BBC's journalism so far has been utter pish? The journalists on the ground are showing appalling credulousness; uncritically presenting everything that's coming from the Palestinian side as fact(Casualty lists, reports of damage, even when they admit to being unable to enter the region, and thus verify it themselves), while at the same time dissecting every single statement made on the Israeli side?

*Grenade thrown*

Discuss!

[WashingtonIrving]

Recently I've come around to the dawning realisation that political 'disputes' are just so much bullshit. Take this case: there'll be 2 camps, pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel. Each will argue their own position, and each set of arguments will have a certain merit. You know, maybe 'right' is on a certain side. Maybe the reporting of this has been skewed towards one side. Whatever. There is the real situation, then there is the interpretation we put upon it. The reality is that people on both sides are dying, people on both sides despise people on the other side, and there ain't a damn thing that can be done about that. So my opinion is that the situation is fucked up, and sanctimonious blabbering about how either side is 'actually in the right' isn't going to help that. Really, not much is going to help anything, other than a bit of time. Maybe the efforts of some interested party will help, but you can rest assured that what motivates this interested party won't be the suffering of people in the Gaza strip.

[Gubbins]

...and sanctimonious blabbering about how either side is 'actually in the right' isn't going to help that.

No, but like all useless debates, it may at least encourage people to think about it and uncover some facts, opinions and ideas that they hadn't previously come across. Unfortunately, it's too early in the morning for me to come up with any enlightened debate, so I'll hand it over to the next post...

[RedCelt69]

<shrug>
The whole thing's an intractable mess that will never be resolved until both sides withdraw all claims to Jerusalem, allowing the city to become stateless and neutral... a city-state over which no nation holds power... where all religions can be freely practiced.

And Israel stops treating the Palestinians as sub-human.

I have a visceral hatred for Israel. By which, I mean; Israeli government policy. By which, I mean; US foreign policy in the Middle East. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinian plight. It doesn't take a biased news report to see that the "conflict" is one-sided.

Expecting a more in-depth reponse from anyone on this list in the shadow of exams is expecting a tad too much

[Anon.]

By which, I mean; Israeli government policy. By which, I mean; US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Isn't that more the USA supporting Israeli policy than the USA dictating Israeli policy, though?

I don't know much about the whole thing, but what does irk me is when people try and pretend that Hamas is somehow not the legal party of power in the Palestinian Authority.

[Delts]

Hamas bombs Israel. Israel bombs Palestine. Everyone moans at Israel. I personally think Israel have every right to raze Palestine until the bombing of Israel stops. It was an act of aggression against a foreign nation by Hamas. Tough shit if they then start bombing the country/territory that you're from. I felt the exact same with Israel bombing Lebanon, especially since Hamas were in Parliament there. Israel should have been allowed to do what they like to get their kidnapped soldiers back (who I believe have never been freed).

[munchingfoo]

One of the things I don't get about this is, why doesn't Israel just recognise hammas as the elected government of Palestine. When rockets leave the gaza strip and hamas claim responsibility then Israel will have a casus belli and everyone else could go about minding their own business.

By calling hamas terrorists rather than a government Israel are shooting themselves in the foot. As it stands, people are likening this to The Troubles, and in reality it's nothing like that at all.

Of course, both sides should just back down, I am merely commenting on the stupidity of Israel's handling of the situation.

[Jono]

So as of today, in spite of this military invasion, rockets are still being fired out of Gaza.

I can't help but draw parallels to part of my dissertation. 1385, Richard II invades Scotland in response to a Franco-Scottish army being raised there. Big old army (possibly the largest ever raised by England in the Hundred Years War) marches north; finds no opposing force; burns Edinburgh to the ground; goes home. While this is going on, Scottish army is marching towards Carlisle and wasting the countryside as it goes. Whole expedition is a big waste of time and money; fails to win a decisive battle; border raids continue as before!

The irony is, once the Israeli army leaves Gaza, and the rocket attacks carry on as before, Hamas will be able to legitimately say that it defeated Israel (although not decisively)!

[Lid]

One of the things I don't get about this is, why doesn't Israel just recognise hammas as the elected government of Palestine [...]

By calling hamas terrorists rather than a government Israel are shooting themselves in the foot.

Tit for tat. Hamas don't accept the existence of the Israeli state, and their party constitution explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. If both sides are going to abide by the Oslo accord, negotiations need to be entered into to establish two self-governing states. That, understandably, can't be achieved maturely when one side refuses to acknowledge the other's right to exist in any form.

The mediator here is potentially Abbas, but with Fatah and Hamas refusing to sit down and talk, I don't think there's much hope of the PNA and Israel entering into any negotiations.

[Hennessy]

I agree the BBC need to lighten up on the Gaza coverage. Objectively there is very little that interests me in the Gaza strip, I have no personal stake in whichever side loses. 'Human Impact' stories have been done to death recently, but the edge is taken off them because this has been going on for sixty years. Sure a kid with lying on a hospital bed with no legs is appalling, but I'm full of the feeling that in another year or so I'll be seeing the same thing, from the same place. It inspires contempt for both sides. What has changed so that we can do anything about it on this occasion?

Another thing that always annoys me is that Arab countries are quick to condemn Israel while offering the Palestinians no support at all except for military support. The fact is the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Syrians all want the Palestinians to stay where they are, rather than offer them asylum or intervene on their behalf. As long as the West still cares, and as long as the Palestinians are still a thorn in Israel's side, they are content.

And why do we care so much anyway? There's plenty of conflict in the world today, what's special about a million and a half people living on the Eastern Coast of the Mediterranean? Nobody ever explains why this makes headlines on all channels, as well as front pages and newspaper pull-outs.

[Lid]

There's plenty of conflict in the world today, what's special about a million and a half people living on the Eastern Coast of the Mediterranean?

I think it sells because it's one of the most densely populated areas of the world being bombed from three sides by one of the world's most advanced fighting forces. Even with today's ultra-accurate weapons, civilian casualties are an inevitability in that situation. Everyone loves an underdog.

[Jono]

I agree the BBC need to lighten up on the Gaza coverage. Objectively there is very little that interests me in the Gaza strip, I have no personal stake in whichever side loses. 'Human Impact' stories have been done to death recently, but the edge is taken off them because this has been going on for sixty years. Sure a kid with lying on a hospital bed with no legs is appalling, but I'm full of the feeling that in another year or so I'll be seeing the same thing, from the same place. It inspires contempt for both sides. What has changed so that we can do anything about it on this occasion?

What gets me about the BBC coverage is how ridiculously one-sided it is. I'm not suggesting the BBC is intentionally biased, but they are showing a appaling credulity. Three days ago, When reporters were banned from the Gaza strip by the Israeli military, they recorded a claim of 500 civilian casualties (I think). This was attributed to 'palestinian medical sources' (as though being 'medical sources' somehow prevents you from being dishonest). Yesterday, in rather hostile interview with the Israeli ambassador to London, that still unverified figure suddently became '500 civilian casualties'.

No doubt the casualties on the palestinian side are catastrophic, which makes any kind of dispassionate assessment difficult. But let's face facts! The whole point of those Hamas rocket attacks was to provoke Israel into a disproportionate response. Now that they've provoked said disproportionate response, they'll want to milk it for all the propaganda value and international condemnation they can. Bear that in mind when reports of huge casualties and bombed-out schools are passed on.

Now that I've come across as a hearless bastard, let me qualify what I've said with recognition that Hamas are a bunch of Twats. Not only do they murder women and children for their own pathetic ideological ends; they're happy to visit death and destruction on the people they supposedly represent through democratic election just to score a cheap political point!

[RedCelt69]

Reading some of the comments in this thread has added a few more pebbles on my Beach of Misanthropy.

[munchingfoo]

Israel, the original* terrorists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 690085.ece

* and bestTM

[RedCelt69]

Or you could read the book of Exodus to see how Moses & Co dealt with their fellow semitic tribes.

[Hennessy]

Israel, the original* terrorists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 690085.ece

* and bestTM

What what what! Violence in the Middle East! Perhaps we should have simply given it back to the Turks, no doubt after their adventures in Armenia they'd have a cost-effective solution for both sides of the insurgency in 1948.

I remember the conviction of a Texan man talking to one of the American news corporations shortly after 9/11, confidently espousing his belief that the solution to problems in the middle East was the "glass crater" approach (the token of which was to turn much of the middle east into a series of 'glass' craters using thermonuclear weapons). Amusing, very amusing. And possibly a solution

[RedCelt69]

Well. You're not the first person to propose a final solution to the "jewish problem".

Thing is, if you're proposing we go around killing anyone who causes us irritation and makes life less pleasurable... you'd better be prepared to take a bullet yourself, Hennesey. And also for humanity to take a few steps back down the evolutionary ladder.

Joking aside... (****************) <tips hat to Bill Hicks>

... as much of an atrocity 9/11 was, how many equally-innocent people have since died at the hands of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq? The tally is still climbing, but it's considerably more than on 9/11. If the arab world starts clamouring for a glass crater solution to the "USA problem" you'd presumably be right behind that, too, right? Right?

******************.

<sigh> My New Year's resolution to be more tolerant of the hard-of-thinking didn't last long.

Edited, and warning for personal attacks on other users - Jono

[Lid]

Well. You're not the first person to propose a final solution to the "jewish problem".

First one to make reference to WWII on a thread: auto-lose.

[RedCelt69]

LOL! Oh Jesus...

[RedCelt69]

Well. You're not the first person to propose a final solution to the "jewish problem".

First one to make reference to WWII on a thread: auto-lose.

If the discussion involved (for example) the best type of flies to use to catch salmon on the river Tay, evoking Hitler might be deemed the act of the desperate and, indeed, suggest the loss of the argument. In which case, you might be right. It isn't. You aren't.

Israel (as a modern state) owes its existence to the sympathies evoked following Hitler's attempts to expunge Jews from the face of the Earth. The subsequent "never again!" attitude of a significant proportion of the Israelis is what has led to them treating the Palestinians as sub-human as the Nazis once treated the Jews. Some people, it seems, are unable to learn from history... or at least, are able only to learn what they want to learn whilst ignoring the more inconvenient truths.

In short, there is a direct causal link between Hitler and the current situation in Gaza.