Netanyahu's victims

Probably everyone on here has their bias towards one side or the other.

Can anyone here come up with a viable solution that both countries MIGHT agree to with the Gaza/Israel never ending conflict or the general Middle East situation (ISIS) Syria Libya Iraq etc??

What is (if at all) the middle ground that could end it?
 
I remain far from convinced there is a viable solution to any of the things you mention, H.......but in the spirit of playing along.

Insofar as Israel/Palestine is concerned, Israel cannot engage until such time as Hamas acknowledges its right to exist as a State.

Israel is not going away, and Hamas need to acknowledge that undeniable fact. This might open the door on meaningful dialogue, rather that the futile, half-hearted attempts we've seen since Oslo.

Israel, in turn, should realise that it is engaged in a much more sinister form of Apartheid than was the case in South Africa, and that the Holocaust does not excuse their persecution of the Palestinians - it only serves to make it seem more perverse.

If the fu*ckers want to know what to do next, they can put me in a suite at the Geneva Hilton, and pay me twenty-large-a-day, to lead the process.....which I conservatively estimate to have a duration of around 18-months.

It's a small price to pay for world peace, no?
 
Last edited:
Apartheid?

Doesn't that mean separation of races? Funny that there are a million or so Arabs living in Israel

Doesn't it mean no voting rights for races? Well there's no elections in gaza now are there? Or across a whole lot of the Middle East as it happens


The solution will be two states but progress is impossible whilst Hamas is in control. Oslo was the perfect opportunity. The palestiniains were granted just about every demand and still walked away.

It will take different leadership on both sides. The trouble is that only one populace can choose that now

What could work is statehood for the West Bank alone (and roll back those settlements) and then leave those in gaza to decide what they want.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Apartheid. It means segregation by means of race or other. Look it up if it pleases you.

It's a different variant from the South African model, but it's a form of Aparthied in my view.

Statehood for the West Bank alone is an interesting concept, but would leave Palestine with no access to the coast, and is probably therefore unworkable.
 
Last edited:
Really and truthily...if we assess the real cause... not just the effect of this war.... this is another damning verdict on Barack Obama's botched diplomacy and foriegn policy.

He shook hands behind closed doors with Iran in secret negotiations last year you may remember, which has got Isreals back up.

The recent comments of Isreali insiders about Kerry suggest their is a major dispute between the Americans and one of their closest allies, which would not have just started at the beginning of this recent conflict.

Combine this with his deal with on Syria with 'new' arch-enemy Vladamir Putin, and 2013 is a year Obama will want to forget.

Sadly the conflict now is as much about making a statement to leaders over in the West like Barack Obama as it is actually about annihilating Hamas.

I just hope a sounder judge, namely Hillary Clinton, gets in office a.s.a.p.:confused:
 
Last edited:
marble said:
Really and truthily...if we assess the real cause... not just the effect of this war.... this is another damning verdict on Barack Obama's botched diplomacy and foriegn policy.
Click to expand...

Suggest you look in a history book that covers more than the last eight years, before commenting on the 'real' cause.
 
Last edited:
How to start an argument online.

1)Express an opinion
2)Wait

I have a diploma in this :D
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Yes, Apartheid. It means segregation by means of race or other. Look it up if it pleases you.

It's a different variant from the South African model, but it's a form of Aparthied in my view.

Statehood for the West Bank alone is an interesting concept, but would leave Palestine with no access to the coast, and is probably therefore unworkable.
Click to expand...


Yeah

Switzerland is buggered too
 
You're right, of course.

The parallels between Switzerland and the West Bank are striking - it was remiss of me not to take this obvious fact into account.
 
Grasshopper said:
Israel, in turn, should realise that it is engaged in a much more sinister form of Apartheid than was the case in South Africa,
Click to expand...

For clarification can I ask, Grass, whether you are referring to an apartheid which may be allegedly practised in the state of Israel itself, or in the Palestinian Territories, ..................... or in both ?

____________________________________________________________________
 
Last edited:
Wouldnt bother. Its the usual student left tactic of dropping "apartheid" and "holocaust" into every reference to Israel. Bating
 
Clearly, my use of the word 'apartheid' is contentious - if it is taken as a literal parallel to that run in South Africa......and whilst I've tried to make it clear that it's a different type, I think it's fair enough to ask me to explain what I mean.

Under International Law, vast tracts of land controlled by Israel, are in fact Palestinian. Whilst Israel may have ceded administrative control of Gaza and the West Bank, it exerts absolute control over the movement of Palestinians out of these administrative areas, and effective absolute control over the movement of goods (import/export), and the provision of utilities like water, sewerage, electricity etc. It also builds 'defensive' walls to segregate (in part) the two populations.

In my view, Gaza and West Bank are similar in nature to Transkei under the old apartheid regime in SA regime.....essentially ghettos to corral 'undesirables', that are autonomous in name-only, becuse they are wholly dependent on the benficence of what is/was an effective enemy state.

To restate, I did not use it in terms of race.....I used it because the parallels are there, in terms of Israel's approach to dealing with the problem of 'undesirables'.

I hope this helps clarify my use of the word. :cool:
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Wouldnt bother. Its the usual student left tactic of dropping "apartheid" and "holocaust" into every reference to Israel. Bating
Click to expand...

I'd prefer it if you didn't insult my intelligence with this tripe. I am trying to have a constructive dialogue with Ice on this matter - something you have proven time and again you're wholly incapable of. :cool:
 
Grasshopper said:
Clearly, my use of the word 'apartheid' is contentious - if it is taken as a literal parallel to that run in South Africa......and whilst I've tried to make it clear that it's a different type, I think it's fair enough to ask me to explain what I mean.

Under International Law, vast tracts of land controlled by Israel, are in fact Palestinian. Whilst Israel may have ceded administrative control of Gaza and the West Bank, it exerts absolute control over the movement of Palestinians out of these administrative areas, and effective absolute control over the movement of goods (import/export), and the provision of utilities like water, sewerage, electricity etc. It also builds 'defensive' walls to segregate (in part) the two populations.

In my view, Gaza and West Bank are similar in nature to Transkei under the old apartheid regime in SA regime.....essentially ghettos to corral 'undesirables', that are autonomous in name-only, becuse they are wholly dependent on the benficence of what is/was an effective enemy state.

To restate, I did not use it in terms of race.....I used it because the parallels are there, in terms of Israel's approach to dealing with the problem of 'undesirables'.

I hope this helps clarify my use of the word. :cool:
Click to expand...

That's all very fine, but what I'm asking you is if apartheid by whatever definition you chose to define it is being applied in the state of Israel itself or in the Palestinian territories alone?

The movement of goods, border controls, defensive walls, between two hostile neighbouring countries does not come under the remit or interpretation of any analysis of what is apartheid -- as I'm sure you know.

Now, if you claim that apartheid ( systemic domination over a minority group on the basis of ethnicity or race) is rampant in the Palestinian Teriitories, then that is down to the elected and governing Palestinian Authority. It is not the fault of Israel since these areas are not part of sovereign Israel.
On the other hand, if you claim that apartheid is being practised in Israel itself, then you will have to provide evidence of it. Israeli Law and the Israeli constitution specifically insist that law and governance within Israel is the same for all citizens as is for Jewish citizens. Israeli law makes no distinction whatsoever based on ethnicity, religion or gender, and that is enshrined in statute and exercised in daily life. (Which is more than can be said for many other countries in the region).
 
On that note, I find I am obliged to go out for a few hours -- so will have to be excused for non-reply for some time.
But I look forward to reading any further opinions you may have upon return later. :)
 
I will ask for a third time if : " apartheid by whatever definition you chose to define it is being applied in the state of Israel itself or in the Palestinian territories alone?"

You are obfuscating the issue with definitions of apartheid. I really would appreciate an unambiguous yes-or-no answer to the question italicized above.


______________________________________________________
 
icebreaker said:
I will ask for a third time if : " apartheid by whatever definition you chose to define it is being applied in the state of Israel itself or in the Palestinian territories alone?"

You are obfuscating the issue with definitions of apartheid. I really would appreciate an unambiguous yes-or-no answer to the question italicized above.


______________________________________________________
Click to expand...

Natch, I believe it is YOU who is obfuscating things; obsessing about a definition I've twice now attempted to articulate. Here goes for my third attempt. :)

Does Israel apply (lets call it 'classic case') apartheid within its borders based on race, ethnicity or religion? I'm happy to confirm that this is not the case.

Does it operate a policy of 'apartness' when it comes to Palestinians? My position is that it undeniably does so - the defence walls and restrictions of movement (whether it be people or goods) pointing to this.

Clearly, Israel believes it has no other option but to deploy these measures, in order to safeguard it's population.....but I personally think it's self-evident that they operate a policy of separation and containment, when it comes to Palestinians. To deny this, is to deny the bleedin' obvious. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Does Israel apply (lets call it 'classic case') apartheid within its borders based on race, ethnicity or religion? I'm happy to confirm that this is not the case.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that elucidation. (Tho' it was like trying to pull hen's teeth to get it). :)
This clarification, of course, directly contradicts your claim in a previous post that : "Israel, in turn, should realise that it is engaged in a much more sinister form of Apartheid than was the case in South Africa".
But we'll leave it at that, yeah?; I promise I won't labour it s'long as you undertake not to repeat it. :D
 
Back
Top