Fwiw I don't think we differ radically in our opinions. I think we want the same thing, which is a damned sight closer than most when you listen to how polarised the outside world is about this. We may have different perspectives on how to achieve it maybe, but even then I don't think there's a significant difference there. I also respect the fact you're far closer to this than I am. I have no dislike for Jews or any sense of belief in the tropes about them controlling some world order. But I do believe there are double standards and a deliberate attempt to spin the Israel/Palestinian conflict in a skewed perspective towards Israel. That doesn't make me hate Jews, it just makes me angry that while that persists it holds back any impetus toward a possible peace process. Where's the pressure or the incentive from the outside world for Israel to change course? And ironically in the long run that'll continue to harm Israel as much as it will Palestinians. I'll also add that I give far more kudos to one particular Israeli in this long-running conflict than ANY Palestinian - and that was Yitzhak Rabin. But I'll also add that I see Hamas as an organization that is continually in an ideological conflict within itself between providing humanitarian support & social welfare for its people, and forcing a dogma of armed struggle at any cost and by any means on that same population. But you know what, I wonder whether any of us would deal with it any better if we were faced with the same hopeless situation.
True, and I hope you didn’t think I was trying to hold all Jews to account for the actions of Israel. My point was specifically with regard to Israel who hide behind the anti semitic banner when they are criticised. That in particular does the Jewish cause no favours whatsoever
Yitzak Rabin and to a degree shimon Perez were both instrumental in trying to broker peace and compromise in the region.
weirldly in conflicts like that it has to be "hardliners" who *try to) make the peace though normally only Arafat was referred to as a terrorist
Sadly there is no one like them anymore. Not even close. I was very fortunate to meet Peres at a charity function in Israel. Only got 20 seconds with him as the entire room wanted to shake his hand, but there are very few moments in life when you know you are standing in the presence of greatness. That was one of them. Unfortunately it's the same situation on the other side of the divide. Hamas haven't held an election in Gaza since 2007. And then we have the dictionary definition of flaccid corruption, Mahmoud Abbas, who recently marked the 18th year of the 5-year mandate he was given in 2005 by the people he apparently represents. Peres was President of Israel when the PLO Central Council granted Abbas indefinite leadership. He apparently remarked that it was one of the darkest days in the Palestinian people's history. One thing many don't know about Peres is how his political stance evolved over the years. If he came to a realisation that a belief or philosophy wasn't working or was counter-productive, he worked for years to uproot it from his ideology and instead committed himself to championing other approaches. Compare his stuff in the 60's and 70's to the 90's onwards and you'd think you're looking at two different politicians. That realism, self-honesty and courage is totally absent in most politicians nowadays. But I think this is a general malaise tbh. No real great leaders left anywhere in the world. America elects a great orange buffoon, while over here we have a series of cretins outdoing each-other to be the worst PM ever. And the situation on the continent isn't great either, with many countries veering steadily closer to fully reverting to nationalism (France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Spain, Austria and even Sweden). It's a bit bleak.
Arafat was also instrumental in negotiating with both aforementioned Israeli PMs. They all deserved that joint noble peace prize. It all seemed to turn to **** when Netanyahu and Likud regained power.
Didnt Peres model himself on Ben-Gurion initially? He certainly came a long way in evolving his political stance towards inclusion and compromise… and that shows real strength from a PM to do that
I think I got the point you were trying to make, and I do try to give the benefit of the doubt especially when it comes to emotive topics and we are able to hide behind the anonymity of an avatar and a stupid username. However your first line: "The whole 'We must never forget' the persecution of Jews rings hollow when the state of Israel actively persecutes the native Palestinians." is a worrying statement to make. And while it is nowhere near the full-on tin foil hat Rothschild space laser conspiracy crap I've seen on here, it does get to the heart of why Jews in the diaspora (i.e. not Israel) are hyper-sensitive to the issue. Why does it ring hollow? Why should it? Should we ignore or forget persecution of Jews if Israel is misbehaving? Is the wellbeing of Jews inextricably linked to Israel? If so, why? Why is it that in every single country with a Jewish population, there is a spike in anti-semitism every time there is a flare-up in Israel? Are you saying that is justified? If so, why? No persecution should be forgotten, nor ignored. These are just the questions that strike me when I read something like you've written and I attempt to see the dots you're joining. The only thing that should ring hollow is arguments for political support of Israel, be that in trade, economy, tech, military or otherwise. Joining any other dots is a dangerous game and not many steps away from me ignoring what must have been the horrendous treatment of Spurlock's family in India (iirc) because I lost a close family friend on 9/11.
He did. And on Moshe Dayan. But they rose from the ashes of the Holocaust, at a time when Israel most certainly did not have the support of the USA and was fighting for its survival. All they knew was how to land your punches when backed into a corner and tbh they were the tough, never-back-down leaders Israel in its infancy needed. Peres' open-mindedness was that he changed as the world changed. He didn't view the end of the Cold War in isolation. Nor the slow but steady secularisation/opening of the Sunni world. He appreciated that from the moment Israel could walk on its own two feet (which probably happened slowly between the peace treaty with Egypt in 79 and Jordan 94, it had a moral duty to help the Palestinians walk on theirs. And he committed his career to this end. The trouble is that in Netanyahu, Israel has a PM who (at least publicly although I am convinced he doesn't believe half the things he says) still views the world like its a post-WW2 apocalypse and Israel is under existential threat from seven countries baying for its imminent destruction. And having a damp flannel like Abbas as an 'official peace partner' suits his cause to the tee.
Likud regained power for two main reasons: 1) The assassination of Rabin in 1995 2) A concentrated wave of suicide bombings against Israelis in the crucial months leading up to the 1996 general election. The latter edged Netanyahu to the narrowest of victories over Peres. It was an awful gamble by Hamas with appalling timing, but Arafat had the nous to realise what the attacks would do to the mindset of Israelis already shaken by the assassination. Arafat had to be much stronger in those months, helping Peres as Peres had helped him a few years prior. Instead, he gambled that Peres was a shoe-in and that the attacks would exert the same pressure as the First Intifada, leading to more concessions in the peace process. He badly miscalculated and, we can say with some hindsight, gambled away a generation of his people having made such progress merely 3 years prior.
I can't read all this stuff, too many words lol, but Citizen Kane has gone up in my estimations, seems he knows his stuff, but then again I'm easily fooled by lots of words, Trebs does it to me all the time.
Personally I think it turned to fck after the Camp David talks broke down and Ariel Sharon came to power. That was the slippery slope. Yeh he withdrew from Gaza but that was more self-serving because Israeli's didn't care about Gaza and it was just costing too much to rule over it. The West Bank was, is, and always will be the real prize. He crossed lines which were never crossed, like going to the Temple Mount, arbitrarily sending in helicopter gunships to carry out state executions of palestinians like a wheelchair bound (sorry Solid) Yaseen, and building a fcking wall to blatantly land grab and set his boundaries for a unilaterally imposed future settlement of territory in the West Bank as part of any peace agreement. He enabled Netanyahu who was even further to the right, to go further and make it acceptable to do so.
This place is ****ing fascinating is all I know. Essentially, cos no one could be arsed arguing against it, Aber managed to changed the entire frame of the thread into this massive and obvious anti-semitic hate train, which some tacitly argued against but overwhelming said "yes u got a point" Now that someone has rocked up with a genuine opinion backed up by evidence, the entire frame has changed again, he's the hero of the day and we are all open minded and reasonable folk and agree it's a deep issue with deep history. No global conspiracy. While Pinkie, building a tent in the Cornish wilds, sits on here sweating because it's been rank and file made obvious he knows as little about this subject as me and you do This is a ****ing amazing website when it wants to be
Difference is I openly admit I know jack shhite about it. I may start arguments sometimes just to fill the void. Pinkie would normally have written war and peace by now, but has fooked off back to his tent, gone inside and closed the zip.
I can answer that. It's because Jews appear to have two positions when it comes to any aggressive acts towards palestinians - either passive or supportive. The supportive ones are just one sided and imo fully brainwashed in their beliefs. The passive tend to come out with the "I'm Jewish not Israeli so why are you holding it against me". The problem with the passive position is that it comes across as a cop out. It's almost like you're hiding your support. I'll also add that every Israeli commentator will reinforce the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. They'll state that to criticise Israel is an act of antisemitism. So in a way, they're putting it out there, that Israel + Jews is one and the same, which I'm afraid has a knock on effect in how Jews are perceived in the outside world. Now I'm not saying any of the attacks or vitriol towards Jews is justified, and what I've posted to explain why fckwits confuse the two does not justify it either. But here's the thing. Following the 9-11 attacks, the 7/7 bombings and that whole period of terrorist attacks across the world in the 2000's, there was huge pressure put on muslims to distance themselves from these acts. 99% of mulsims didn't condone the butchery by the extremists but they had to make the effort of publicly condemning it at every opportunity. Has that ever been asked of Jews in terms of them illegally occupying Palestinian land or the acts of a Jewish state in their name? Of course not. Let's take this a little further to perfectly example this. The antisemitism within the labour party was wholly unacceptable, to harrass and discriminate ppl based on the fact they're Jewish was shameful. I listened to those Jewish MP's and was embarrassed as a Labour supporter. But then I ask the question which has nothing to do with justifying the discrimination against them, but to ask the question, should they be expected to speak out against Israel? Not because if they don't then they should receive pelters, but because there is some responsibility on them to do so when they don't support Isreal's actions. Margaret Hodge is one of the few who I'd say does at least do that. And to highlight my point she's right when she says, it's not pro-israel to remain silent" but what she means is you're not doing Israel any favours by staying silent against the right wing extremist path it's treading.
