Entertainment For Lively Minds
Israel's attack on Gaza aid ship
Posted by Patrick Crowther on 31 May 2010 - 2:19pm.
I feel sick. This is an absolute disgrace. When will the world powers wake up and state categorically to the Israeli government that its actions are totally unacceptable?
Haven't the people of Gaza suffered enough already? Must pain and misery now be inflicted on those compassionate enough to want to help them?
- More from Patrick Crowther.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Can we have...
a 'down arrow'?
If you want a 'down arrow'...
...I want an 'ignore' button.
Hint
It's the big green one up there to the left marked with a white left-facing arrow. Unless you're not using Firefox, in which case it probably just says 'Back'.
My post was aimed at the previous poster.
Why are you being chippy with me?
I hadn't realised that you needed a better
carpenter.
Obviously my dove-tails aren't quite up to scratch.
Just joshing really Paolo, all meant with a smile.
Aw, I'm glad we've made up...
...and if we can, why can't everyone else?
PS: It seems I was using 'chippy' in the Canadian sense...
I wish
there was.
Difficult subject...
It seems to be that any criticism of the Israeli government immediately leads one to be labelled as anti-semitic which of course is ridiculous. The English government found this out when they expelled their spy-master earlier in the year after the passport fraud assassination thingymajig.
The BBC seem to be "bottling" this one and the worthless interviews with Israeli mouthpieces I have seen so far is just begging for a Paxo to label it what it is, an act of piracy in international waters.
Many people, not least the 'Israeli-supporting' voters in the US
find it convenient to conflate the state of Israel with the religious beliefs of the vast majority of its population.
I couldn't give a toss about anyone's religious affiliations but, until a US administration is willing to risk alienating that particular section of their electorate by distancing itself from this sort of state-sponsored terrorism, the state of Israel will carry on behaving like a fifth-form bully with a big brother lurking on the other side of the playground.
American overseas aid...
huge chunk goes to Israel yet they claim to be against sponsoring and supporting terrorism. Ironic isn't it.
The fifth-form bully analogy is highly valid.
It also gives a nice way of questioning the actions of Hamas..
If the kid in the playground goes up to the bully, spits on his blazer and kicks him in the shin, fully knowing that he'll get seven shades of shite kicked out of both him and a couple of his innocent mates, is he then entitled to go running to sir to complain about the bully's behaviour?
A bunch of notoriously trigger-happy men, with a lengthy history of scant regard for the lives of those they perceive as possible enemies, all heavily armed, are landing on your ship. Do you: a) Stand still with your hands up and put your trust in the international community to condemn their actions and highlight the plight of your friends? Or do you b) Run at them en masse and try to attack them with crowbars?
The Middle East situation is one of grave concern but neither of the protagonists manages to elicit much of my sympathy for their cause.
Damn right
Damn right
Abhorent
He'll be spinning in his grave tonight then.
So will Fernando Pereira
When he hears the French governments indignation at the act of attacking a peace activists ship.
Israel
has turned into a bully-boy with a messiah complex.
double standards
No - Israel is a state that behaves like any other state i.e. it defends the interests of its people. I have stood by many times and listened to people with nothing at stake advise either Israel or the Jews how to act. Why do you expect us to live up to standards that you do not apply to others? It always feels to me that such people are happy to see Jews as victims, and are very uncomfortable when we try to defend ourselves. Perhaps if the so-called 'international commmunity' had historically made a better job of protecting the Jews of Europe/Rwandans/Bosnians/Sudanese/Armenians/Timorese/Kurds/Iraqis/Non-Persian Iranians and so on, the actions of Israel would be less necessary.
Of course, all suffering and loss of life is abhorrent. Nothing would please me more than a world in which Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews lived together or alongside each other in peace and prosperity. Only a fool would want it otherwise. But I just have to ask; how do the peace activists think they are going to help with their flotilla? If you want the moral superiority of travelling into a war zone under a flag of peace, you really then have no right to be surprised if people fire at you. If they had passed without opposition, they would then no doubt be crowing aboout how brave they were to face down the Israeli armed forces. I would also have a lot more respect for these people if they were more even-handed. I readily acknowledge that Israeli are not all saints. No, they are humans, as flawed as the ones who live in your house and the one next-door. Many of these humans also suffer enormous stress and loss of life due to the war that started in 1948 and doesn't seem to have ended yet.
So again I say it: We can mourn all loss of life on all sides, but please don't demonise one side just because your own prejudices make you instinctively side with the perceived underdog. This war is a tragedy for both sides.
Your last sentence...
I couldn't agree more. It is a tragedy, and it affects everyone in the country.
I did not post this blog to have a dig at the Israeli people in general; far from it. I posted it because I care about the people on both sides of the conflict and I just don't see how the Israeli government's actions could lead to anything other than a deterioration of the situation.
This is a thorny subject and I wouldn't normally have written a blog entry about it, but occasionally something seems so utterly brutal and nonsensical to me that I have to say something.
Israel / Palestine is too beautiful a part of the world for this madness to carry on forever.
I wish peace...
...was as easy in real life as it is on this blog! I doubt I would agree with you in a political debate, so I won't engage in one, but I absolutely agree with the sincere hope that this conflict can end as soon as possible with both sides feeling that the future is better than the past. I only wish someone could figure out exactly how to make this happen in a way that would be acceptable and sustainable for both sides. As you say, we are talking about a beautiful land. After the second world war, we say that it is an immense tragedy that so much talent in so many countries was wiped out by the criminal actions of madmen. I am not going to use this blog as a place to judge the leaders of either side in this present conflict, but I am sure that if the conflict did reach a merciful end, the talent and energy of both sides would help the land to prosper.
Amen...
to that.
It is a beautiful country...
I have no prejudice.
I'm prepared to demonise all sides in all conflicts and all wars. Killing people is wrong.
That may seem a bit simple-minded, perhaps naive, but there's nothing as stupidly simple as a violent and bloody death.
It's up to all of us to say: no, enough is enough.
Politics and religion
And I am not prepared to demonise all sides in all violent conflicts. i wish my own family had used overwhelming violence against the various people who persecuted and murdered them in the last century. If they had done so, I would have a lot more family around now. I don't hope to convince you that my viewpoint is correct, but there again I am not relying on you to defend me when someone comes along to try and kill me because they think I control the world/media/financial system/library fines system (delete as applicable). I am not a pacifist. I am very happy for people to defend themselves, although I pray that all of us never have to do so, and I fervently hope that israelis and palestinians may live in peace.
Let's all hope
that the Men and Women of good heart on all sides in this awful conflict eventually find some way to cross the river of blood and suffering that has grown so broad and deep.
Amen
As Patrick Crowther said
"Living up to standards"
is a telling phrase. This conflict has always been fought using standards that very few people really understand outside of the participants. A news report from the BBC underlines the problem:
It's the language used that betrays the lack of understanding: "in political terms the damage has already been done", "a potential public relations disaster". These are values of a Western society applied to a situation that reflect a mode of thinking that assumes an equivalent moral foundation. This conflict doesn't reflect that type of moral foundation, it never has, it is deeply rooted in a history and a morality that few understand. The dialogue of the West is all wrong, including those who give their sympathies to the Palestinians are as culpable in perpetuating the erroneous language and values. It doesn't matter that this conflict is 2000 years, 70 years or 7 minutes old, it has enough of a history to overwhelm any society's 'darkest hours'. The "peace" in this region was built on a compromise imposed by outsiders and the peace that everyone hopes for is based on that same sense of compromise, one that reflects a political, diplomatic and a consensual landscape neither Israel nor the Palestinians fully recognise nor really value.
Whilst commentary from either side of this conflict continues to play to a global gallery that is happy to use the morality joker at any given opportunity, then this conflict will prevail. The mirror is held up to both sides and neither one has found the message that unlocks peace and the West hasn't got a clue how to help to reveal that message whilst it persists in using language based on a diplomatic mind-set that supposedly reflects the values of its own society. So long as the West panders to ITS own sense of morality in this "Question" the deaths will continue on either side.
This is a conflict that needs a revolution from within the geography of where it is fought. Anyone outside the region is pissing in the wind, no matter how morally sound they think their arguments might be.
and it wasn't
especially peaceful even in times when a peace was imposed from outside (e.g. during the British mandate).
You make some very astute points there. Over time, the attitude towards Israel (which I know more about than the attitude towards the Arab side) has shifted depending on the general political mood in the West. Generalising horribly, there was initially a pro-Israel feeling on the Left as Israel was seen as a socialist triumph, then veering off to an intense dislike on the left as post-colonial guilt set in, whereupon Israel began being painted as the poster-child for US imperialism. Zionism was out, pan-Arabism was in.
As you note, it is mad to talk about public relations in this context, but the West does tend to take the media war seriously, and thus so do the combatants. Recently, the palestinian side seems to have been more effective at presenting its case in a way that appeals to Western values, and has gained (I imagine) more supporters.
People who only look at how each side is portrayed and portrays itself in the Western media would do well to look at how each side's leadership presents itself to its own people. This would enlighten many people as to what each side 'actually' thinks it is fighting for.
With respect, I think you're missing the point.
When you say, "It's the language used that betrays the lack of understanding: 'in political terms the damage has already been done', 'a potential public relations disaster'. These are values of a Western society applied to a situation that reflect a mode of thinking that assumes an equivalent moral foundation."
There is no lack of understanding here: that Western society plays a huge role in keeping Israel afloat. Which is why the PR damage of a botched act like this does matter; it affects the views of voters, and the politicians who depend upon voters, across the Western world. Not least in Turkey.
With respect, I think you're missing the point
What the West says and how it says it with the language it uses - as for example in the BBC report I quoted - betrays a lack of fundamental understanding because it is based on PR, spin and an outsider's view of where and how to apportion blame, responsibility and a moral viewpoint. All sides in this conflict play to the West's gallery in order to elicit responses from the West - either officially through government or unofficially through the media - to generate attention that works in their favour or against their opponent. In recent years Israel has been the big bully bad boy because apparently having better weapons than your opponents makes you a big bad bully. Try and imagine living in Israel and being told that your defence budget is going to be scrapped in a bid for ever-lasting peace with your neighbours. You think that's going to keep the wolves from the door?
The lack of understanding is the belief by many in the West that its value system, as represented by this type of language, will somehow prevail in relieving this region of this conflict. It won't. It actually serves to sustain the conflict precisely because it provides any fuckwit with an opinion who writes for a newspaper carte blanche to express "moral outrage" because the actions of Israel insult their morality system. Diplomacy in this conflict has, at best, delayed the next outrage rather than actually prevent anything.
By all means be outraged, you should be. But don't confuse your moral outrage with being the correct determination that the actions of Israel have no moral foundation in any context and that its actions the other day exemplify its reputation as the villain of this conflict. Last time I looked the only people talking about annhilation were those opposed to Israel in any shape or form.
The truth of the matter is that "The West" also keeps those who oppose Israel "afloat" although not through "official channels" and those in power would rather we knew less about that because it is not in our interests to think otherwise. Governments want people to confine their moral outrage towards those involved directly in the conflict because it stops them turning their ire against their own masters.
And of course the knock-on effect does matter because it affects people's decisions, like the people of Turkey. I never claimed otherwise. But that's just part and parcel of either side playing to the gallery of the West. The West has been fickle about this conflict for decades and the views of the masses in the West have often followed that fickle trend.
Excuse me,
but I'll thank you not to make the assumption that I "confuse (my) moral outrage with being the correct determination that the actions of Israel have no moral foundation in any context and that its actions the other day exemplify its reputation as the villain of this conflict."
You seem to be suggesting that "The West" is irrelevant to the search for a future solution to the situation, due to a lack of understanding of it, and at the same time suggesting that Israel's recent actions do have some "moral foundation". They have none. No more than launching rockets from Palestinian territory has any "moral foundation". Both are immoral, futile and foolish.
My apologies
for making an incorrect assumption.
I do believe that the West is largely irrelevant in determining a lasting peace in this region whilst it persists in pursuing a Western-oriented diplomatic solution. Any solution has to come from within the region itself and as others have pointed out many neighbours of Israel and Palestine are more than happy for this conflict to last for an eternity for reasons beyond politics, diplomacy and Western moral values.
I'm slightly confused though. You take umbrage at my assumption that you think that "the actions of Israel have no moral foundation in any context" and then declare in the next breath its actions have "no moral foundation"; in fact "[t]hey have none".
My point - for the third time - is that while the West continues to lecture this region on morality (as evidenced by the language used) then it will continue to pursue lines of argument that will largely fall on deaf ears within the region.
I'm morally outraged that women are stoned to death for adultery. I'm morally outraged that mothers bring up their children for the sole purpose of providing cannon fodder as suicide bombers. I'm morally outraged that people hide behind religion to enact their warped and perverted sense of humanity, justice and retribution. But I don't hoodwink myself into thinking that my moral outrage amounts to a hill of beans when held up to the moral framework that informs individuals, tribes and nations which allow such actions to occur and thus offend my own sense of morality.
Nietzsche said that fear is the mother of morality. When someone has no fear of their own death or of inflicting death upon others (whether in acts or terrorism, war or self defence) then they draw a line in the sand nowhere near where Western societies draw theirs.
I'm not deliberately demonising one side
of this dispute, and I don't have a prejudice that instinctively makes me side with the underdog, thankyou very much. I assume your accusation was directed at my comment, as this is where it appears in the thread. I admire your measured words and good wishes for both sides, but would ask you not to put words in my mouth, or make assumptions about whether or not I have 'anything at stake'.
Hamas and the Knesset between them are perfectly capable of demonising both themselves and each other.
The fact remains that Israel has behaved appallingly on many occasions and over many years. Five minutes on Google will reveal a tit for every tatty rocket launched over the border, and then some.
Israel has prevaricated for the last 17 years over the development of a deep-water port for Gaza to allow the place to trade its goods with the world, while simultaneously imposing a blockade that has been roundly criticised by the UN amongst others, as being draconian in its extent.
Clarification
It is very hard to respond to your initial comment and the second one without descending into a shouting match. I will try to explain my logic, but I really have no desire to do anything but beg for some degree of balance. I hope that my reply does not further annoy you, but if it does there is not really much else I can say ecxept agreeing to disagree. I didn't come on this blog with one-sided accusations about the side which is labelled as my enemy. Even though I may despise the actions of some of their representatives and have fundamental disagreements with their philosophies, I don't hold a grudge against any innocents that are caught up in this dire situation through an accident of birth.
In my first paragraph - when I talk about people with nothing at stake - I was referring to the general trend of many outsiders to criticise Israel. I see this all the time (and on occasion in the pages of the illustrious organ which generously hosts this blog -step forward, Bobby Gillespie et al), and hardly ever engage with these people as it tends to lead (online, anyway) to tit-for-tat posts that are as unconstructive as the conflict itself.
When I sppoke about demonising, I was indeed talking about your comment.
You say that 'Israel has turned into a bully-boy with a Messiah complex.' You may have meant this in some inoffensive way that I don't understand. But to me, this statement has many flaws. Here are some: a) You have taken a conflict of two sides and laid the blame squarely on one b) You talk about 'Israel' as if it is a single entity, when it is a plurality of people with many different opinions c) You talk about Messiah complex, a religious term that has nothing at all to do with the situation in Gaza. Jews do not want Gaza for its religious significance. In fact, the vast majority do not want it at all. We would be happy if people just left us alone d)Bully-boy seems to imply that you disapprove of armed Israeli action, but you don't balance this with any comment about the provocations from the other side. Just because one side is richer or more heavily armed, it doesn't mean that they are wrong. As you say, this whole mess is full of tit-for-tat; an agony for both sides which I hope ends very soon.
I could choose to ignore all of these types of comments, but I am frankly sick and tired of people doing the very thing that you seem to object to: using cod-psychology to analyse the Israeli mind-set and putting words into the mouths of Israelis and Jews.
I'm always careful (although I admit I do fail from time to time) not to treat Palestinians/Arabs/Moslems/whoever as a collective group who think the same way and act the same way due to their religious or ethnic identification. It is not always easy, but I want to meet everyone on their own terms. I wish people would extend the same courtesy to the groups to which I belong, instead of labelling us all as either victims, aggressors or people who magically control US foreign policy.
Jewish does not equal Israeli.
It's of course very important to remember that huge numbers of jewish people are disgusted by the actions of the Israeli government and are very critical of it.
Whilst Israel has every right to defend it's citizens it is the constant over-retaliation and refusal to accept International law and UN resolutions that make even it's closest western friends despair.
Illegal use of fake British passports and the humiliation heaped on their supposedly closest friend the US shows a State that is just contemptuous of any criticism.
Thankyou Doug.
That was a central point that I failed to make; the observation that 'we' and 'us' as applied to the Israeli state is not the same as 'we' and 'us' as applied to Judaism.
talking to myself
... and I should also confess that of course I am prejudiced as I do have a stake in this conflict, plus feel a natural sense of nausea when my own side suffers, while always trying as far as humanly possible to remember that I could just as easily have been born a Muslim/Arab and would thus presumably have inherited a different set of prejudices to combat.
And to think, when I first started posting here I thought it would be all about Exile on Main Street reissues and RT playlists...
Further clarification.
My clumsy remark about a 'Messiah complex' was an allusion to the sense that I get of the Israeli state as one that sees itself as somehow special, as being composed of God's chosen people, which, as eny fule kno, is a pretty dangerous train of thought.
And I don't care who says otherwise, the recent Exile On Main Street re-issue is getting plenty of bodacious blasting 'round this gaff, as it rocks summat stupid. There, that's better, bit less politics.
Shalom.
Shalom Salaam
...and the Stones have been rocking my abode with great frequency and volume this week too...
God on their side
Apparently Hamas have him too, according to their charter:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article721211.ec...
It also says of the Jews (no qualifications):
They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests.
Now, while - like many of us - I've had my doubts about the Rotary Club (all that charitable work had to be a cover for something) this does seem a mite deranged. And I can kind of understand why a neighbouring government based on this credo might make Israel somewhat nervous.
I'm not condoning Israel's actions, of course, just trying to understand them.
As both sides seem to take their cue from god, perhaps a sensible way forward might be for everybody to just drop the guns, bombs and missiles and pray really hard until god makes it clear what she wants?
it's all a conspiracy
A while back, a columnist in the Jewish Chronicle was asking why he had never been invited to join the international zionist conspiracy. There were a few parking fines he wanted cancelling. Personally, I have always felt that 'our' conspiracy must be the one of the worst-kept secrets in history, as everyone seems to know about it.
With a heavy heart, a long post
Jingard, I really have tried hard not to get involved in this one, but your conflation if anti-semitism with an anti-Isreali government sentiment is sticking in my craw.
No-one here is objecting to the state of Israel or of its right to defend itself - particularly in the wake of mortar and rocket attacks on settlements close to Palestinian enclaves.
But Israel is fanning the flames of anti-Israeli sentiment by creating the conditions in which support for Hamas can flourish by its treatment of ordinary Palestinians.
Barricading people into to small areas and attacking them (albeit after rocket attacks) gives the terrorist groups the oxygen to not only survive, but to flourish.
I have several friends who have worked in Gaza and the West Bank who say that most people there would love to be rid of Hamas, Hezbollah etc but the conditions they face allow those groups to prosper.
Also, Israel's hugely disproportionate reaction to the threat of Hamas is at the root of the recent era of 'PR disasters'. The Mossad operation in the Gulf, attacks on Gaza and the flotilla were ill-conceived to say the least.
It has nothing to do with 'I wish we had fought in the past to keep my people alive' because that was in a different era and hugely different set of societal circumstances. I think we all wish we had been able to fight in that era for that goal - I know I would have.
However, Israel seems to see the total subjugation of those who have become known as the Palestinians - from control of the water table, to right of way, to imports and the right to grow crops - as the best way of dealing with the spectre of Islamic anti-semitism.
You know what? Ultimately the extreme force method is doomed to failure as it just antagonises those sentiments further.
The road map has to be resurrected and a peace process has to re-emerge.
I am not anti-Israeli, I am certainly not anti-semitic but I do hate being labelled so (not by you, I stress) when I point to the terrorism of Isreali defence forces.
If Israel and the wider international community could create the climate in Palestinian territories where the extremist groups can't flourish i.e. establish the basis of a civil society where these groups can't be seen as benefactors (build schools, hospitals etc), allow right of way, then we could perhaps starve Hamas of their life blood. It has worked, albeit in a costly way in Northern Ireland.
I'm not getting at you, but I hate the current climate of excusing Israeli aggression in the face of a flotilla that wasn't an act of (outright) aggression.
Long reply too- sorry
PaddyH, I readily acknowledge that anti-Israeli government sentiment does not equal anti-semitism. Many Jews do not support the Israeli government, and many Israelis do not support the Israeli government, and they are not anti-semites. I also know that some non-Jews have a genuine problem with the Israeli government; I had a very civilised chat with my publisher recently in which he told me that he thinks that the whole creation of Israel was a mistake, but we get on fine personally and I do not see him as anti-semitic.
The issue of 'anti-Israel does/does not equal anti-semitism' has become such a standard argument in these kind of discussion that it has almost replaced 'some of my best friends are Jewish...' as an introduction to posts. I like to hope for the best from people, and I assume that anyone posting here who is unahppy at the present incident genuinely has a political or ethical objection to Israeli policy. However, as a Jew, I find very often that the tone in which these views are expressed is not too dissimilar or indeed identical to the tone adopted by people who are anti-semitic. The tone is so different to the tone in which people dicuss the policies of say, Belgium or Ecuador to take two countries at random, that it naturally raises my hackles. When I see people march wearing 'we are all Hezbollah' t-shirts, I mentally check that I have a passport in easy reach so that I can leave the country quickly in case they decide that they are also all Nazis now or all Taliban now too.
In this whole thread, I don't think that I have actually expressed my personal view on this particular incident or Israeli policy in general. I have tried to limit my comments to the tone of the debate, so as to avoid inflaming things further.
Again, without discussing this particular incident, I agree that if Israel could figure out some effective way of bypassing the Hamas leadership while improving the economic conditions of people in Gaza, things might improve. The problem at present is that there is no easy way to do so, as it is not in the interest of Hamas for this to happen and they are the ones with the guns. Some might say lift the blockade! Even if this happened, it would be a hard sell to ask the Israeli public - whcih already pays for a frankly unbelievable amount of aid to Gaza even during what is effectively a war - to increase its contribution while under rocket fire and while the rest of the Middle East does not also commit to providing economic aid (and I emphasise that I mean genuine aid, not weapons).
I also agree that there is some degree of hope provided by the Irish experience, but there is not so much of a parallel between the two situations as to allow a direct copy. Not to say that we should not try, but it is damned difficult. Both sides have and can live together in peace, but historically that has only really happened when Jews have been subjects e.g. under the Ottoman Empire and when conditions in Europe were far worse for us. I am not about to rehearse all the various arguments about how I think it should all end and whose is to blame for what, as I am sure that i have already tried your patience enough by now!
It seems to me (excuse the ultimate politician's opening!)
that one problem with Hamas is that the only people openly having to deal with them on a daily basis are the Israelis because they're right next door.
It would surely only help things if Israel would kindly stop crapping on it's own international reputation, and if Hamas really want to be taken seriously, they have to get their own house in order too. Which is, of course, part of a wider problem in the same vein.
Absolutely appalled
yet again at the disgusting behaviour of the Israeli government and what no doubt, will turn out to be the cowardly self serving response of the Western nations.
I am not anti-semitic.In fact I have some Jewish blood flowing through my veins,a part of my heritage of which I am very proud.I am though anti-war,anti-violence and stand four square against ANY persons of whatever race or creed that seek to deny the liberty of others to pursue their lives in peace.
Quite...
I couldn't agree with you more.
I went to Israel in December 2008 as my then girlfriend was working in Nablus for MSF. I met wonderful Israelis and Palestinians. The problem I have is with Zionism, the continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and the incredible double standards displayed by the international community when it comes to the Israeli government's actions.
This conflict is not ages old. Seventy years ago people from both sides of the community worked together, socialized together and were at peace with one another. I would so dearly like to think that one day this could happen again. But on the evidence of today's news I'm afraid it will be a long time coming.
I blame
the Turks. Oh what a tangled web we weave.
The Israeli Government
is the most racist and bigoted of all but they can afford to be because America will never stand against them even when they make the insult that they did recently over the settlement issue. The Iranian issue will be used as an excuse for any future bad behaviour on behalf of the Israeli government. They suffered terrible genocide in the second world war yet seem prepared to exact the same retribution on the Palestinian people. I am sure there will be comments that what they are inflicting is not genocide but how else can it be explained??
Both sets, as have been
Both sets, as have been commented on before, are culpable. And I see no benefit in trying to apportion greater amounts of blame to one or the other.
But I really think that accusing the Israeli government of "genocide" is a bit of stretch unless I am missing something.
A systematic destruction of a people based on a single characteristic isn't really what is happening. If you're equating Gaza with the Endlosung, I'd love to know why.
Any argument whether verbal
or physical requires one side to stop its aggression to allow some form of peace to break out. Whether you are arguing about whose turn it is to do the washing up, the validity of The Fall or fighting over a homeland for a whole race of people it takes two to argue or fight, at some point someone has to be big enough to say I'm not fighting any more. This is not giving up or conceding it is accepting that nothing is being achieved under a cloud of confrontation. Until that happens all conflicts continue until an inevitable disastrous conclusion. I don't pretend to be informed enough in this instance but one would hope that sense can prevail.
Wholeheartedly agree
with Mr Crowther, and Mr Squeezer.
At the risk of starting an argument about moral equivalence,
could someone explain to me why we are outraged by Israel killing people offering support to a state they are in conflict with but not outraged by our own government killing the wives, children and helpers of people in Afghanistan and Iraq that we regard as terrorists?
Speaking for myself
I am outraged by those actions you mentioned. I know of many, many other British people who are too.
Meanwhile, if you're interesting in seeing a snapshot of what life in occupied Gaza is like, I can thoroughly recommend this fascinating and heartbreaking documentary, shot during the 'Operation Cast Lead' incursion last year.
http://toshootanelephant.com/
I am disturbed and outraged
by ANY act of violence.The ONLY justification for violence by an individual,state,protest group or any other classification of persons is self-defence or when judicially applied for the protection of those not able to defend themselves.
If things progress as they have done...
... then Israel will have solved the Palestine problem soon enough; give it another couple of decades - see image five
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2010/mar/03/richard-hamil...
or is taking a step back and looking at the long view somehow misleading?
Stratfor analysis
I friend sent this link earlier - it's a very useful analysis of the events of yesterday ... now Israel's given itself an enormous problem:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100531_flotillas_and_wars_public_opinio...
Worth a watch..
Call for Nosher Powell..
Starts getting amusing at about two minutes.. a few interesting faces to spot..
Word independent film buff needed.
Can anyone recall the name of the superb independent film that was produced a couple of years back about two Palestinian guys who got caught up in the whole Islamist martyr nonsense; one of whom sees sense, the other of whom, despite doubts and wavering, cannot in the end allow himself to fail in what he sees as his duty?
I think it was
'Paradise Now'.
That's the one.
Thankyou Slotbadger, I've been racking what remains of my cerebral cortex over that for weeks.
Highly recommended viewing by the way.
You're welcome!
I did an interview with the director, Hany Abu-Assad a few years back. On the strength of this film, I think he's now working on a few projects in the US.
His stories of life during the film shoot were mind-boggling.
I know this isn't directly involved,but...
I understand that the EU President has
called for tough sanctions against Israel. Foremost among these is to be their expulsion from next year's Eurovision Song Contest
Perspective.
Couldn't they have just approached the boat without invading it to begin with?
It was a cock-up
The Isreali troops, armed, board at least one of the vessels in International waters. They are overwhelmed by iron bar wielding people from the boats. The Isrealis impose their authority by firing live ammunition killing at least nine people.
The questions are: why were the boats there in International waters in the first place? Why were they boarded by the Isrealis at that point? Why were the Isrealis overwhelmed/beaten? Why were live weapons discharged?
The Isrealis say there were reports of guns being fired at them. Reports are not the same as facts.
The truth is the Isrealis cocked up. A routine interception of a floatila of aid ended up with their troops being overwhelmed and shots being fired, resulting in deaths. It happened in international waters.
The Isrealis seem to be out of control and have been for some time, flouting international laws re the blockade and their use of disproportional violence (including in the recent Gaza conflict). If they are going to continue to enjoy the support of the 'west' they have to get their act together quickly.
Whatever the history, current Isreali behaviour is beyond the pale.
As far as I can see
Israel doesn't need to get its act together at all. Not while it has carte blanche from the US to do whatever the hell it likes. That isn't going to change in any hurry.
Lucky once
Israel is in the position where it has to win all of the time in order to survive. In that situation it is not surprising that they are paranoid about threats to their security. The question is where do you draw the line between short term security and longer term damage to that security. Just like we did when we invaded Afghanistan to get at Al queda (which was arguably sensible), and when we invaded Iraq (which in my view only made sense in terms of keeping close to the USA and in other ways reduced our security).
Mix into that Israeli internal politics and theology, and there is a strong driver to cross the line. The Palestinians feel they have nothing to lose and so will attack in any way they can. Both sides provoke the other, and both sides attack in the name of retaliation.
I suspect we are getting closer to "a plague on both your houses" which in the end can only lead to the end of the Israeli state, though it might take centuries (because you can't win for ever). One day the USA might decide Israel is more trouble than it is worth.
It is a tragic situation, and I don't see how it is going to be resolved without greater tradgedy.
Personally, I think the Israeli's screwed up big time, and the spin of their generals and politicians (who are much better at it than the Palestinians) made me angry. If they had been in Israeli claimed waters they would have been able to defend their actions - but Israel frequently acts beyond its own borders to the outrage of the international community but no greater consequence. Yes they were provoked, but they righly lay claim to higher standards than might is right, and should have done better in managing the situation.
calculus
A lot of sense in what you say about the difficult balance. Another balance that Israeli governments of all stripes always have to bear in mind is that between achieving security and being seen as the 'good guys'. If one could always rely on the UN and the world's more powerful states to intervene rapidly and decisively on the side of the righteous (whoever they are!) then it would be an easier choice. When it has come to the crunch, Israel has not always been well-served by these people (e.g. the various arms embargos that have been imposed while Isreal has been attacked), and neither have lots of other states and ethnic groups. Indeed, many people in the West do not like foreign adventures of any sort, so you can understand (even if you don't always agree) why some Israeli politicians opt for short-term security over good PR.
And contrary to what some posters here think, the same goes in spades for the relationship between Israel and the USA. No Israeli politicians rely on or receive carte blanche from the Americans. Instead, they agonise over what will be acceptable to the Americans and tend to obsess over every election over there to see how things stand with the relationship. Many critics of Israel (not naming anyone specifically here) think that Israel can 'do what it likes' because it receives US aid. That is a misreading of the balance of power. When the US wants to rein Israel in (as George Bush senior did) they just threaten to cut the aid. There is no magical connection between the two states, but rather a set of strategic interests that sometimes coincide and sometimes do not.
Isn't that to deny....
That there is an extremely powerful pro Israeli lobby in US politics that any American President ignores at his own peril.
The very fact that the US (under a supposedly Liberal President) seems to be happy with Israel themselves carrying out any enquiry into this nasty mess, whilst everyone accepts that would just be another whitewash of the facts,shows a lack of determination from Obama.
Also, as with the conflict last year when Israel refused to let reporters see inside Gaza (for their own safety,of course)mobile phones were apparently taken from everyone.
It will be interesting what footage, apart from the ridiculously one sided nonsense Israel has released, will get to be seen.
I'm not so sure
This is where I risk incurring the wrath of Paddy H. It is very difficult to answer this without appearing to accuse someone of antisemitism. I will assume that you ask your question in good faith and try to answer accordingly.
There are all kinds of lobby groups in the USA. There is a well-funded Jewish lobby, true, but there are also many other well-funded lobby groups. The Jewish population of the USA is actually pretty small and only significant electorally in a couple of states. In addition, the main lobby group (AIPAC) has not always been on good terms with the US presidency in recent years due to a highly contentious legal case involving passing confidential information to Israel.
When people talk about the pro-Israel lobby, I cannot deny that one exists, but I also fear that s subset of these people have the misleading impression that this is some kind of cabal that dictates US policy. This is demonstrably untrue. There are a number of situations in which US and Israeli interests have not been identical and Israel has been forced to tow the US line (e.g. Suez, the first Gulf War, lack of early action on Iranian nuclear development, sale of Israeli weapons to states with which USA is unfriendly).
I could just as easily suggest that the US is run by a powerful lobby of white protestants; just look at the number of those types of people in congress and senate, the oil industry, the motor industry, etc. Or I could say that the US is run by a pro-black lobby: they totally trounced the only potential Jewish candidate for the presidency, they give lots of aid to Africa (even under George Bush junior), there is a black president, there is a large black population in many key electoral states such as Virginia, etc etc. As a perhaps naive optimist, I don't believe that any of these lobby groups runs US policy. I just thnk that America follows its own interests. And just because these happen to differ from the enormous 'lobby' of muslim, communist, or liberal European countries that make up the UN, since when are the majority always in the right?
Opinions...
"I will assume that you ask your question in good faith and try to answer accordingly."
...To me it's these sort of remarks that annoy. It hints that to criticise is to be anti-semetic. This sort of innuendo is used to distract any form of criticism off the Israeli government at a time when only the most ideologically blinkered would think that they shouldn't be criticised.
...John Donne: "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind".
Not my intention, honestly
I was trying in my clumsy way to indicate that I thought the exact opposite of what you imply. I really meant no criticism, just an honest difference of opinion.
As I said earlier, I have not actually stated my opinion of the recent incident anywhere above, as far as I can remember, yet even so several posters have taken it as read that I am trying to defend the actions of the Israeli government.
And innuendos can go both ways, as I tried to explain in my reply to PaddyH. When you live in a culture where it is a common idea among a surprising number of people that the Jewish people in some way control the media or finance or whatever, you are bound to be sensitive when someone talks about the power of this or that lobby. I'll say it again. I believe that most if not all of the Massive are well-intentioned people, and I have no objection at all to people disagreeing with the actions of the Israeli government. That government is a political organisation; it does not represent the sum of my personal philosophies, and I don't wholeheartedly support any of the Israeli political parties. It is just difficult to say anything against such objections without people thinking that you are accusing them of antisemitism. We then end up in a game of innuendo tennis. I think I've said all I want to now, and will finally shut up!
Strewth mate.
I don't know where you live, but I'm sure that 'round these parts I'd be very hard pressed to find anyone at all who believes, or even ventures a suggestion, "that the Jewish people in some way control the media or finance or whatever". I honestly hoped that was a shibboleth that had largely faded from view.
It's believed by Hamas
and taught to Palestinian children, I'm told.
Don't want to speak for the man
I can't be sure, but I don't think Vulpes lives somewhere Hamas has that kind of reach, educationally, at least.
Just pointing out
that it's a widely-held view in some parts. And unless wolfie lives in a part of the UK without a significant moslem community, I suspect he wouldn't have to look too far to find someone who believes in it. Sad but true.
It's all C of E
round here. At least, that's who organises the Summer Fayre and the Village Fun Run I believe. Cucumber sandwiches, PG Tips and Victoria Sponge. Hollyhocks and geraniums. Sunday Service every other weekend, shared vicar, aging congregation. The only plots around here are vegetable ones. Very comforting.
It's also worth pointing out...
That "shibboleth" is a Hebrew word..
No kidding?
:)
Conspiracy nuts...
...are fond of the Jewish One World Government trope, too. It's not just Hamas. I used to work with one such representative of the International Brotherhood of Fuckwits, who believed that all the Jewish workers at the Twin Towers were told not to go to work on 9/11. She also thought David Icke "has some interesting ideas". She taught English in a good secondary school.
I'm not kidding. There are no words for some people's idiocy.
(BTW: she once advised all the kids in her class to avoid vaccinations because they're a form of mind control or some shit. This in the week that the girls were going to get their HPV shots. It's lucky I'd left the school by then, or I would've torn her face off.)
It has become a PR battle.
And, for some reason, Israel cannot see this. Hamas and those allied to it know that Israel will over-respond to even the slightest provocation. So they provoke, and wait for the response so they can can show how downtrodden and oppressed they are. Hamas may be dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel but, let's be honest, it's not really going to happen by them flexing their military might, is it?
If Israel wishes to win this little war, it needs to change tactics and move away from the response of maximum force which served them so well thiry-odd years ago. They need to do nothing. They need to bring in the camera crews to show where the rockets land. They need to say "No.. we will not launch attacks at unmanned rocket-launchers deliberately sited near schools, hospitals and homes."
They need to take the moral high-ground. Hamas will have their main weapon, that of PR and World opinion, turned against them.
Won't happen, though, will it?
Cinema verite
Could work, but people tend to be very suspicious of film footage (and rightly so - there have been some well-documented recent cases of news footage being edited egregiously by media outlets to provide a misleading or more dramatic picture). I think it would be great if Israel could persuade journalists to set up permanent camp just over the border from Gaza. Either they would get fired on repeatedly and so feel some empathy for the local civilians OR the firing would stop. Any volunteers?
or, even better, allow journalists to
move freely across the border and report on both sides of the divide
not apologising
I'm not about to apologise for my opinion, I'm not going to state for the record that I'm not anti-semetic, I'm not going to say 'but some of my best friends are Jewish' or state that I have some Jewish blood, and if anyone - at all - reads my posts or interprets my sentiments as being - or being similar to those who are - anti-semitic, that's entirely down to them. There's far too much apologising going about for having an opinion which is in any way anti-Israeli government.
Not going to repeat some very good points that have been made previously, either. Just going to paste Mark Steel's comments in today's Independent:
Of course, they were asking for it.
It's time the Israeli government's PR team made the most of its talents, and became available for hire. Then whenever a nutcase marched into a shopping mall in somewhere like Wisconsin and gunned down a selection of passers-by, they could be on hand to tell the world's press "The gunman regrets the loss of life but did all he could to avoid violence." Then various governments would issue statements saying "All we know is a man went berserk with an AK 47, and next to him there's a pile of corpses, so until we know the facts we can't pass judgement on what took place."
To strengthen their case the Israelis have released a photo of the weapons they found on board, (which amount to some knives and tools and wooden sticks) that the naive might think you'd expect to find on any ship, but the more astute will recognise as exactly what you'd carry if you were planning to defeat the Israeli army. It's an armoury smaller than you'd find in the average toolshed in a garden in Cirencester, which goes to show the Israelis had better destroy Cirencester quickly as an essential act of self-defence.
It's a shame they weren't more imaginative, as they could have said "We also discovered a deadly barometer, a ship's compass, which could not only be frisbeed at someone's head but even had markings to help the assailant know which direction he was throwing it, and a set of binoculars that could easily be converted into a ray-gun."
That would be as logical as the statement from the Israeli PM's spokesman – "We made every possible effort to avoid this incident." Because the one tiny thing they forgot to do to avoid this incident was not send in armed militia from helicopters in the middle of the night and shoot people. I must be a natural at this sort of technique because I often go all day without climbing off a helicopter and shooting people, and I'm not even making every possible effort. Politicians and commentators worldwide repeat a version of this line. They're aware a nation has sent its militia to confront people carrying provisions for the desperate, in the process shooting several of them dead, and yet they angrily blame the dead ones. One typical headline yesterday read "Activists got what they wanted – confrontation." It's an attitude so deranged it deserves to be registered as a psychosis, something like "Reverse Slaughter Victim Confusion Syndrome".
Israel and its supporters claim that Viva Palestina, made up of people who collect the donated food, cement and items for providing basic amenities such as toilets, and transport them to Gaza, wanted the violence all along. Because presumably they must have been thinking "Hezbollah couldn't beat them, but that's because unlike us they didn't have a ballcock and several boxes of plum tomatoes".
One article told us the flotilla was full of "Thugs spoiling for a confrontation", and then accused them of being "Less about aid and more about PR. Indeed, on board was Swedish novelist Henning Mankell." So were they thugs or about PR? Did they have a thugs' section and a PR quarter, or did they all muck in, the novelist diverting the soldiers with his characterisation while the thugs attacked them with a lethal spirit level?
But some defenders of Israel are so blind to what happens in front of them there's nothing at all they wouldn't jump to defend. Israel could blow up a cats home and within five minutes they'd be yelling "How do we know the cats weren't smuggling semtex in their fur for Hamas?"
If this incident had been carried about by Iran, or anyone we were trying to portray as an enemy, so much condemnation would have been spewed out it would have created a vast cloud of outrage that airlines would be unable to fly through.
But as it's Israel, most governments offer a few diplomatic words that blame no one, but accept the deaths are "regrettable". They might as well have picked any random word from the dictionary, so the news would tell us "William Hague described the deaths as 'hexagonal'", and a statement from the US senate said "It's all very confusing. In future let's hope they make every effort to avoid a similar incident."
On apologies.
I understand your frustration at always having to point out that you're not anti-Semitic as a preface to any Israel-bashing, sorry legitimate criticism of the state of the international pariah numero uno Israel.
It's notable though, that most people of a 'liberal, left' (I use the terms advisedly) persuasion seem to have found it remarkably hard to condemn any of the countless acts of violence perpetrated by Islamists in recent years without some qualifying statement of exactly the kind you're so keen to avoid, e.g. 'maybe if I'd grown up in the occupied territories I'd have felt compelled to forcibly circumcise women, er I mean become a suicide bomber'*, or 'well, they live by different cultural norms there, don't they? Who are we to force our fancy liberal notions of universal suffrage down their throats?'
*suicide murderer being the critical distinction, as Hitchens correctly points out.
My last post on this because I am tired of the bullying all over
Dougie (as you know)& Jingard, I'm not a flag waving Irish Republican eejit who blindly follows the Palestinian line and leaving aside your erroneous misgivings of my 'some of my friends are Israeli' angle, you are completely wrong to assume that simply bullying Palestinians and their supporters will resolve this issue.
Leaving aside the complex geo-political problems of the middle East, the fact remains that in conflicts like that in Israel/ Palestine for there to be a resolution, the apparatus of civil society has to be in place to lead the aggressors to a position of being open to negotiation or at least to allow the people to bring the aggressors to the table.
Israel has chosen not to do this. It has chosen to shut people off from their crops and tell them what time they can tend them, it has chosen to control the water table and curtail movement, it has chosen to deny aid and demonise those trying to bring in aid.
On the one hand, this has been done to counter radical Islamic régimes and for that reason it has been commended by many. But, I can't do so given the pogroms associated with innocents in Gaza.
Killing children doesn't solve things, it provides more fire power for the nut jobs. Also, in curtailing movement and economic development in Gaza and the West Bank, in continuing to push people into small spaces and leave them without the systems of civil society, it encourages the environment in which fundamentalism flourishes to prosper.
To hem people into to walled communities and attack them, Israel appears to be a bully and that is what rises the heckles of many in the west. Israel manufactures situations where it can only be the winner.
No-one is arguing for the legitimacy of the fundamentalist states like Iran but if they had boarded a flotilla and behaved like Israel we would be looking at a major world war. That is a double standard.
And yet, Israel's answer to Hamas is to formulate a kind of genocide of its own.
On the world stage, the economic and ideological power of the West can deal with rogue Islamic states because the system is designed that way.
Either way, the treatment of the innocent in Gaza is being ignored, not everyone there is Hezbollah or Hamas, but treating them as unitary body allows the nut jobs to prosper.
Stop buildings walls, stop building settlements as provocation and give people the economic climate to work and govern/ rule and administer themselves and you go some way to starving Hamas of its ideological life blood.
I'm sorry but shooting people in fields, taking away their water and right to work on the basis that there are terrorists in their midst just provokes new terrorists.
There is a vast body of work on Peace Processes to work from, many based on Israel and Palestine in the early 90s and all of this is ignored due to the current political climate in Israel and the West.
Keep punching people and you will eventually provoke them.
Modern states may have been born of conflict but that is until recently. There is evidence that a new era is upon us, but Israel and Hamas are choosing to ignore it.
This is my last post on this. I respect your point of view, but it genuinely makes me angry to see attacks on innocent people being excused as some part of a geo-political narrative and for me to portrayed as either anti-semitic or politically naive to oppose bullying and murder.
A remarkable blog posting
I began reading with the fear that the comments section might dissolve into The Guardian CIF section rant and counter rant. But there has been remarkable restraint, tolerance and sensitivity from all the posters. I honestly can't imagine where else on the web I'd find the same. Just to say how impressed I am with the Massive.
So true
I would not even contemplate entering a discussion on this topic anywhere else on the web. I have also been really pleased (but of course not surprised) at the courteous way this thread has gone. Thanks, everyone
It occurs to me
that we judge Israel by a different set of standards than we apply to the collection of assorted despots and religious nut-jobs that make up most of the rest of the middle East.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to why that should be and is it fair to do so?
That has often occurred to me as well.
'Right wing'* columnist Melanie Phillips has pointed this out in typically forceful style recently. Specifically, why is wailing and gnashing of teeth about the plight of the Palestinians focused solely in Israel's direction, when Egypt also shares a border with the territory and enforced its own blockade more strongly than its much-reviled neighbour. One can but speculate.
One might even cogitate on the notion that the wider Arab world cares not one jot for the fate of The Most Oppressed People in the World Ever, but instead uses it to distract its people from the reality of life under their lamentable regimes.
*a moot point in a world where much of the Left is apparently 'all Hamas/Hezbollah now' - groups who, were they Serbian for example, would be neo-Nazis, pure and simple.
Within international laws..
..a blockade is an act of war.
How can Isreal be at war with territory it's supposed to occupy?
Bullies...plain and simple.
But israel
does not occupy Gaza. Egpyt controlled it from 1948 to 1967, then lost it in the six-day war. Israel withdrew in 2005.
..because they're supposed..
..to know better.
Because they've built a wall - both physical and naval
to stop supplies getting to their neighbours with the aim of starving them into submission (literally and metaphorically)?
To me, that's a good reason to treat them differently to other states.
The Mash chips in
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/israel-just-making-it-e...
I enjoyed the phrase:
"Helen Archer, a social worker from Finsbury Park who keeps a photo of Polly Toynbee in her purse..."
Who'd have thought..
..that this subject would have stirred such hot debate?
I am for from being a member of the Dawkinista
But if anywhere provides evidence that religion is a Very Bad Thing, it is the middle east. It really reminds me of a quote from Voltaire: "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities"
I was reading about Gandhi this morning (researching a lesson)
and I came across this famous quote from the great man:
"God has no religion."
I think that informs my own view. There is nothing wrong with faith in God. There can be an awful lot wrong with religion.
Here's another one:
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Nuff said.
So you don't need to be an atheist to see the sense in what you say.
Nice quotes.
God does God stuff. Religion is done by people. QED
Any examination of history
Any examination of history teaches us that the "winners" are usually A allowed to knock the shit out of their opponent (not going to happen in this case) - or B smart enough to realise that COMPROMISE in some form or another, is the only practical and moral way forward.
The Jewish faith - convinced that they are the chosen "meek that will inherit the earth". And harbor a form of fascism towards Arabs and Muslims that is truly bizarre to witness in this day and age. I talk from experience having spoken to people with cold eyes, genuinely believe that there are races and religions less of a right to life and existence. As a result no-one is going to sort this issue without economic sanctions and pressure.
What purpose does Israel serve? - its a carefully calculated thorn in the side of the Muslim world. All about economics and oil.
As far as I am concerned Israel does have a right to exist.
I think that much of what you say would still hold true if you used cut and paste to swap "Arabs and Muslims" with Jews.
On the other hand, Palestine also deserves to exist. When people really start to talk to each other - as has happened in N Ireland - maybe things will go forward. On this point I would definitely criticize the present Israeli government and particularly Binyamin Netanyahu. His concession this time last year are too little too late, IMHO. But then I am not an expert.
'What purpose does Israel serve?'
Nice analysis. Or, y'know, history could just kind of happened...
I'll tell you what I find bizarre in this day and age. People focusing intently on one regional conflict when there are so many to choose from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_political_conflicts
It's interesting that the Left can so quickly forget the context of the founding of the modern state of Israel in the aftermath of the (yawn, boring I know) holocaust, which ended all of 65 years ago (god, get over it, eh?), while justifications of the latest pathetic 'insurgent' outrage from Islamists about caliphates and crusades are tolerated in the name of avoiding the alleged crime among crimes of cultural imperialism.
Surrounded as they are by countries in which The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is always the hot read du jour, and whose heads of state have a habit of stating how they'd like to wipe Israel off the face of the map (I know, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad - what a crayyzy guy!), portraying them as the big bad bully is an interestingly novel way of reading the situation.
Nick Cohen's* 'What's Left?' has never been more relevant.
*Cue dark mutterings - 'well, of course he would write a book like that...'
Reading Strange Days Indeed
at the moment. One thing that comes out clearly is the antisemitism of a lot of the 1970s radical left
Francis Wheen
is a colleague of Nick Cohen's in the Euston Group, and therefore to my mind represents the true Left, in contrast to his erstwhile Private Eye colleague Richard Ingrams, who decided that 16th September 2001 was the ideal time to write a piece condemning Israel, despite this not being a claimed justification of Bin Laden's for the attacks (the presence of The Great Satan in his homeland of Saudi Arabia apparently sufficing for the purpose of justifying mass murder).
Ahem, Isreal is a 1st world country
1 - Isreal is a 1st world country. Wealthy, heavily armed, funded and subsidised
2 - Gaza is one of the poorest regions on the world. People are living in poverty, with basic supplies and medical resources lacking.
3 - Recorded death toll since 2005 - Palestinians 3,225, Isaelis 950.
4 - no-one alive at present is responsible for what happened to Jewish people during the holocaust. So its not a valid point at all to bring up when relating to this issue.
Whilst it doesnt excuse any form of terrorist violence of course, including the random launching of missiles into Israel - some kind of resentment, and retaliation based on these basic facts is sadly inevitable.
Its much easier it is for us to sympathise with a 1st world country like Israel of course, because its easier to identify and relate to what is familiar. They seem more like us. But its clearly a complete misrepresentation to portray the conflict as some kind of historical fight between equals. And to selectively forget how ludicrously unequal the conflict actually is, really is a form of self deception. The occupants of the Gaza strip have the same humanity and right to that as anyone else. If you don't think so - really, examine your motives, and your prejudices.
Why exactly
should I sympathise with a country whose government believes that world history is manipulated by the Jews, via their chosen medium of the Rotary Club?
you don't sympathise with countries,
You don't sympathise with countries, you sympathise with people. If for any reason you find yourself NOT empathising with people equally based on their relative circumstances - I suggest you should ask yourself why this is the case.
Indeed
However the ability - or even willingness - to empathise with both sides here would appear to be rare.