Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xnatex

Israel Vs Gaza

who will win?  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. who will win?

    • Israel
      15
    • Gaza
      0
    • Everybody loses
      34


Recommended Posts

So - the first round has to go to the PA here - Israel responded with further provocative action. Then some terrorist will respond and then Isreal can say "I told you so?". Lets see. But so far a very very poor start from Israel.

 

I like how you say this is a very poor start from Israel right after saying the Palestinians started it.

 

Just remember GFK, in the next round of fighting in a few months - it was the Palestinians who tore up Oslo or whatever was left of it.

 

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, but Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...eli_settlements

 

But it has never been tested in a court of law. When it does, it'll be interesting because Israel will evoke the international principle of estoppel which prevents a side which violated their part of a contract from demanding that the other party follow the obligations of the contract.

 

That will be an interesting argument because remember, the Palestinians rejected the partition. If that technicality is upheld, that is still mandate land, and thus in trust to the nation of Israel.

 

I have noted a couple of time how Isreali policiticans were influenced by aspects of the Apartheid structure in South Africa.

 

No you haven't. But lets hear from a black man from South Africa who has actually been to Israel:

 

Not just in the building of walls, and seperate roads and restrictions of movement and so forth but in how to organise the people that they were attempting to control in the most effeicient manner. The method that underpins the philosophy of Isreal is based on this - Bantustan - have a look :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan

 

Israel has no restriction of movement, does not build walls or separate roads to restrict Israel's citizens.

 

One is not apartheid by having a separating fence with one's neighbour.

 

You don't know the meaning of apartheid.

 

Furthermore, your link's irrelevant. Israel's philosophy is not based on this. Israel's philosophy is based on Zionism, an ideology that predates Bantustan theory by some 80 years.

 

Quit lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have a propensity to believe GFK's drivel, the UN's definition of apartheid is based on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

 

The 'crime of apartheid' means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, 
committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial 
group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

Here's the clincher: Note how it doesn't mention location?

 

So lets give the floor to Judge Richard Goldstone in NYT October 2011:

"in Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 
Rome Statute."

This is because everyone in Israel has equal rights. Hell, Israel's had an Arab Bedouin acting president. There's an Arab judge in the Supreme Court - fuckload of Arabs in the judiciary, the military, the police force, etc.

 

It's an integrated thriving multicultural oasis.

 

Apartheid, the only way we've ever seen it, is an attempt to segregate citizens from other citizens based on race or characteristic of some sort. Kind of like the Palestinians do (if you want an example) with them not allowing Ahmadiya Muslims to marry or hold government positions, or how they do not allow Jews to purchase land in Palestine - that's aparthedism. Another example would be the way Japan treats it's Korean-heritage citizens.

 

The way Israel treats its citizens who are Arab is not in any way Apartheid.

 

Where GFK is getting completely confused is that he believes that Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens have the same rights as Israeli citizens. This is patently and legally untrue - they do not.

 

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel must treat the Palestinians as per the Palestinian laws - hence the different laws for Israelis and non-Israelis in the West Bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are the odds that Israel makes good on its suggestion that taking out Abbas was an option now that the UN granted Palestine observer status?

 

To be honest, they'd have to be insane to do so. He and Fatah are like the only thing holding the wolves back as far as I'm aware. As much as I dislike dictators, the more leashes on those nutjobs the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are the odds that Israel makes good on its suggestion that taking out Abbas was an option now that the UN granted Palestine observer status?

 

To be honest, they'd have to be insane to do so. He and Fatah are like the only thing holding the wolves back as far as I'm aware. As much as I dislike dictators, the more leashes on those nutjobs the better.

Pretty good. The thing is, if Israel wipes out Abbas politically the world will get to see Hamas in action across the board.

 

Nobody's going to want to give them a state whereas right now the world's in a state of plausible deniability, thinking a weak moderate government with little popular support is going to hold itself against a bunch of popular crazed militant fanatics who love death more than life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GFK, before yet more drivel from you about how Israel is an apartheid state, I heartily urge you to examine Freedom House's report:

 

http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/...20Booklet_0.pdf

 

There's a very telling graphic on the Middle East and North Africa on page 26. It says that only 2% of the entire region's people are free. A simple check of the Internet will confirm for you that the population of said region is 381m. 2% of that is 7.62m people.

 

Every single one of them is an Israeli citizen.

 

There is no apartheid in Israel. If there is, we're going to need a new word for the atrocious treatment of humans that happens in North Africa and the Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

Apartheid is a rather evocative word and most certainly does not describe the situation in any part of Israel I've ever been in.

 

It probably stems from there being a lot of Uzi carrying troops on the streets in the country, which has been essentially under siege from terror for a long time and the border checks of day-workers coming into Israel from the territories in particular. It has to be understood, that's how suicide bombers get in and the workers choose to work in Israel, nobody forces them. To which I suppose the answer would be there is no work in Gaza for example but it is not any nation except the one you live in that is responsible for the local economy.

 

Israel is most certainly nothing like apartheid South Africa, a place I visited a number of times when that condition existed.

 

It implies separatism, its avowed intent, "separate development," but its reality was despicable. Sad to say South Africa has hardly improved from its removal.

 

Oddly there ARE undertones of separatism in the world, mostly in Muslim countries, Malaysia springs to mind, it can even be said of Australia.

 

However to evoke it with respect to Israel is naive to say the least, Israel is a very integrated nation of many, many nationalities, including Arabs.

 

It suggests to me some people should go visit before they spout off.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would love to visit Israel, I really liked the United Arab emirates and would definitely go back there again. Flights to dubai are pretty decent prices as well.

 

I heard Saudi Arabia can be good as well, as long as you are a male anyway. Other then that tho, it would be pretty hard to justify flying over to Israel, I wanna go but cant seem to justify it atm

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To which I suppose the answer would be there is no work in Gaza for example but it is not any nation except the one you live in that is responsible for the local economy.

No workers allowed in from Gaza any more. Border's closed except to Israeli aid vehicles, NGOs, reporters (after signing a death/disablement/torture waiver) and the UN. They also sometimes allow referrals from Shifa hospital

 

Israel is most certainly nothing like apartheid South Africa, a place I visited a number of times when that condition existed.

One of my business partners is South African. He's never owned slaves though his parents did.

 

He says that the situation there is intolerable. Crime is through the roof, and while there is real freedom, you can't do a damned thing with it because they chased symbolism.

 

There's daily talk of taxing whites (hello apartheid!) for being white, the ANC youth wing is no better than the Hitler Youth and their current President thinks the ANC is more important than the constitution itself, thinks a shower after sex is better than a condom to limit spread of AIDS and is generally a homophobic sexist douchebag, leading a government substantially worse than the above description.

 

Whites are fleeing South Africa. Anyone living in Perth can attest to that. One more generation and it'll be yet another African basket case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

I honestly do think I have more South African born friends in Perth than I have those born in WA.

 

Didn't know the Gaza borders were closed Leo, down to working in Egypt now I suppose.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know the Gaza borders were closed Leo, down to working in Egypt now I suppose.

Nup. Morsi's been tougher than Mubarak on closing down smuggling tunnels, etc.

 

Plus responsibility for Egypt is still in the hands of the Mukhabarat, not in the hands of the politicians, and they're keeping the Gazans well contained.

 

Sure, there's some limited access but Egypt's economically fucked - there's no jobs for locals, much less Palestinians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

Apartheid is a rather evocative word and most certainly does not describe the situation in any part of Israel I've ever been in.

 

It probably stems from there being a lot of Uzi carrying troops on the streets in the country, which has been essentially under siege from terror for a long time and the border checks of day-workers coming into Israel from the territories in particular. It has to be understood, that's how suicide bombers get in and the workers choose to work in Israel, nobody forces them. To which I suppose the answer would be there is no work in Gaza for example but it is not any nation except the one you live in that is responsible for the local economy.

 

Israel is most certainly nothing like apartheid South Africa, a place I visited a number of times when that condition existed.

 

It implies separatism, its avowed intent, "separate development," but its reality was despicable. Sad to say South Africa has hardly improved from its removal.

 

Oddly there ARE undertones of separatism in the world, mostly in Muslim countries, Malaysia springs to mind, it can even be said of Australia.

 

However to evoke it with respect to Israel is naive to say the least, Israel is a very integrated nation of many, many nationalities, including Arabs.

 

It suggests to me some people should go visit before they spout off.

 

Cheers

Naive?

 

Well firtsly, I never said Israel was an apartheid state. What I did say, is that Israel was influneced by the South African system as a way to manage their own affairs. I stand by that comment 100%. Which aspects they adopted in part or whole or in which manner I did not disscuss.

 

A key aspect of this was the Bantustan model model I disscussed above - that this was an aspect of Israeli polictical thinking is now undisputed - have a look at this as a primer :-) http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/featu...-s-hope-1.10275

 

 

Secondly - well this is actually a massice area of disscussion so I would consdider you naive if you have never actually thought about it.

 

The fact is that numerous UN investigations have identified aspects of the Israel/Palestine situation as having apartheid aspects. In fact langauge used has included 'ethnic cleansing'. In March 2011, Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights described the continued illegal settlements and forced eviction of Palestinains as a form of 'ethnic cleansing' (which I have alluded to before - the policy is to have a majority of Jews in these areas over time).

 

There is an extraordinary amount of information here on the issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...ote-Falk2011-48 - it really is quite comphrehensive and well worth looking at if you want to understand the issue and make up your own mind. Especially consider that the leading text in the field is cited regularly. Especially consider the amonut of commens that come from Israeli sources :-)

 

As it is there are far more people who accept the analogy than oppose it at least on rational grounds. Including the key UN players. Many of these views are rationally based.

 

However in my opinion I think the situation between Isreal and the Palestinians is "unique" - in some ways I have more in common with some of the critics of the analogy - the rational ones I mean - they dont agree that Israel is a apartrheid state in the classic sense and reject that term as being applicable. It doesnt mean that they dont have serious issues with the situation of course, nor do they deny that Isreal was influenced by how other countries dealt with their ethnic "problems". But they dont call it an 'apartheid state'.

 

I agree - to a point. On close analysis I believe that there are many aspects that are similar to an 'apartheid state' and many of these aspects are generally invisible to the casual observer (I guess this is where being in my lofty academic tower is of some assistance?). These are often based around process and administrative matters for example - the real way to look at how things 'are'. But that doesnt make it an apartheid state in the classic sense that we automatically associate. What I do contend however, and this is almost non controversial is that, as I have stated, Israel was influenced by aspects of the South African apartheid state - it took what it wanted from a number of different system and adapted this to their own specic needs based upon their own sense of place (for example the Jews have always seen themselves as having more moral legitimacy that the whites in South Africa). It is somewhat alarming then that so many Israeli politicians themselves have openly talked about Israel being based on apartheid.

 

Naive??

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...ote-Falk2011-48

 

 

Have a read. With an open mind. Then think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, even Arabs recognise that Hamas are unreconstituted assholes. The only apologists for them are Western leftoids - which is damned bizarre because once upon a time leftoids believed in minority rights, a concept clearly not known in Islamist politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Leonid, the media has succeeded in painting Hamas et al as the minority.

Edited by Cybes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well firtsly, I never said Israel was an apartheid state. What I did say, is that Israel was influneced by the South African system as a way to manage their own affairs. I stand by that comment 100%. Which aspects they adopted in part or whole or in which manner I did not disscuss.

That's because there are none. You're flinging shit in the hope it sticks.

 

Here's a challenge for you: find me something a Jewish citizen in Israel can do that an Arab citizen cannot.

 

When you do, we can talk about apartheid.

 

A key aspect of this was the Bantustan model model I disscussed above - that this was an aspect of Israeli polictical thinking is now undisputed - have a look at this as a primer :-) http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/featu...-s-hope-1.10275

You keep pushing this but it is simply not true. Let me explain this to you very simply and very slowly, as if I'm speaking to an idiot.

 

1. A Bantustan is a geographical region.

2. A Bantustan is a "self-governing" territory

3. A Bantustan contains a racially segregated society apart from the "host" nation.

4. A Bantustan contains people the "host" nation does not want in its own borders for racial reasons.

 

All of the above must be true in the context of the Bantustan model. Nothing Israel has ever proposed has ever been based on the above.

 

Ever.

 

The fact is that numerous UN investigations have identified aspects of the Israel/Palestine situation as having apartheid aspects.

No they haven't.

 

In fact langauge used has included 'ethnic cleansing'. In March 2011, Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights described the continued illegal settlements and forced eviction of Palestinains as a form of 'ethnic cleansing' (which I have alluded to before - the policy is to have a majority of Jews in these areas over time).

Richard Falk doesn't know what Apartheid is. Richard Falk pushes 911 conspiracy theories, has been condemned by the UN Secretary General, and has been described by Britain as unbalanced.

 

There is an extraordinary amount of information here on the issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...ote-Falk2011-48 - it really is quite comphrehensive and well worth looking at if you want to understand the issue and make up your own mind. Especially consider that the leading text in the field is cited regularly. Especially consider the amonut of commens that come from Israeli sources :-)

Let me explain to you one more time GFK: If Israel is apartheid and is yet considered a free nation with full civil and political rights for all citizens - then every single nation of its level is also apartheid.

 

Apartheid policies != Freedom.

 

And since every nation next to Israel is not free or partly free in the civil rights area, does it not stand to reason that analogies of Israel to apartheid are merely created by demented leftoids who really have no freaking idea?

 

As it is there are far more people who accept the analogy than oppose it at least on rational grounds. Including the key UN players. Many of these views are rationally based.

Like Richard Falk?

 

However in my opinion I think the situation between Isreal and the Palestinians is "unique" - in some ways I have more in common with some of the critics of the analogy - the rational ones I mean - they dont agree that Israel is a apartrheid state in the classic sense and reject that term as being applicable. It doesnt mean that they dont have serious issues with the situation of course, nor do they deny that Isreal was influenced by how other countries dealt with their ethnic "problems". But they dont call it an 'apartheid state'.

Israel dealt with it's ethnic problems by granting citizenship rights and full civil rights to 1.5 million Palestinians.

 

What ethnic problems?

 

What I do contend however, and this is almost non controversial is that, as I have stated, Israel was influenced by aspects of the South African apartheid state

Incorrect.

 

Jews have always seen themselves as having more moral legitimacy that the whites in South Africa

Have you polled the 7 million Jews in the world that would be enough to state that a majority do indeed hold this view?

 

It is somewhat alarming then that so many Israeli politicians themselves have openly talked about Israel being based on apartheid.

So many? Count them. Seriously. Count them.

 

Naive??

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...ote-Falk2011-48

 

 

Have a read. With an open mind. Then think.

Yes, read about the 911 truther.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to read up on the central pillar of GFK's proof of Israel's "apartheid", here he is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk

 

He's a wonderful guy. Read the bit about supporting Khomeini.

 

Falk's entire life has been about standing up for and brown-nosing assholes while excoriating those who stood up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

That's rather a lot to read GFK, probably much of which I've seen before and disagree with.

 

I find one aspect very concerning however and it does reek of anti-Semitism.

 

Many documents, especially those originating in the UN seem to use the terms, "Jew" and "Israei" indiscriminately when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Israelis, and especially the native born Sabras come from all faiths and often resent being even called Jews but it persists. They marginally accept "Jewish" as being an ancestral term but even that is often incorrect. Someone might as well call me "Christian" because my family come of Anglican backgrounds when in fact I'm at best agnostic.

 

That is however dramatically at odds with what went on in South Africa where skin colour, including the so-called "Cape Coloured" had bearing on how discrimination worked. In fact it went further, I once had a secretary who was English but had worked in Johannesburg, she found herself quite often discriminated against because she did not speak Afrikaans.

 

That in no way aligns with Israel in fact it aligns better in a religious sense with many Arab states and in many regards to Arab tribalism which is very subtle. As an observer I could compare it to the Indian caste hierarchy, but I would be as utterly wrong as anyone comparing the social system of Israel to that which once existed in South Africa.

 

Something people seem to fail to understand, every society that I have ever lived, or indeed travelled in, has some degree of racism or discrimination, Israel is not exempt in that regard. But it is totally wrong to think that Israelis hate Arabs or put them beneath themselves. By contrast try being a practising Jew in many Arab countries.

 

It is, in my view, EXTREMELY naive to posit from an "Ivory tower" without having lived, worked or at the least travelled, in the parts of the real world that are being discussed.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would further state that it is EXTREMELY naive to consider anything said about Israel by the UN Human Rights Council as true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

 

The composition of the UNHRC is not exactly favourable to any stance on Israel but in reality the UN is and has been for a long time very lacking in influence, especially when it comes to the ME.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's rather a lot to read GFK, probably much of which I've seen before and disagree with.

 

 

Thats called arrogance. I thought you were better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's rather a lot to read GFK, probably much of which I've seen before and disagree with.

 

 

Thats called arrogance. I thought you were better than that.

 

By the way GFK, how is the Syrian candidacy for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is, in my view, EXTREMELY naive to posit from an "Ivory tower" without having lived, worked or at the least travelled, in the parts of the real world that are being discussed.

 

False logic. I dont need to live through a nuclear war to know I dont want to live through a nuclear war :-)

 

I presented information. Which you should read. In it entirety. With an open mind. Then reflect critically.

 

 

This is all I ask :-)

Edited by GhostFaceKilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False logic. I dont need to live through a nuclear war to know I dont want to live through a nuclear war :-)

That's a funny statement to make from a guy who claims to love rights and freedoms but wants to give Hamas control of 7 million people.

 

 

Worth watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one quick comment which may not have been clear (its difficult because some posters dont actually address issues in a specific manner and instead go off on tangents with out addressing the issue presented) - but any refernce s I have made to any notion of an 'apartheid' structure refers to the situation in the Occupied Territories - I am not talking about the situation within Israel (though racisim is prevalent in some parts).

 

I am afraid that one of the posters here is yet vagain showing his ability to reda something glancingly without actually reflecting on what they are reading ( I have noted this a couple of time in regards to quotes he has thrown up - he says they say one thing yet they actually say something very different - which he then ignores).

 

In line with this the poster posted this:

 

----

1. A Bantustan is a geographical region.

2. A Bantustan is a "self-governing" territory

3. A Bantustan contains a racially segregated society apart from the "host" nation.

4. A Bantustan contains people the "host" nation does not want in its own borders for racial reasons.

 

All of the above must be true in the context of the Bantustan model. Nothing Israel has ever proposed has ever been based on the above.

 

----

 

Trouble is, all 4 of these apply to Gaza and the West Bank :-)

 

I provided links to Isreali Prime ministers and politicians talking about how this model was the best for Israell and how they admired aspects of the SA aprthaeid system.

 

I provided my opinion - which deomnstrated knowledge, objectivity and understanding of the subtley and nuances of the political world in which we live. I have never ever taken a 'side'.

 

Trouble is we have someone running around ranting basically calling anyone that he doesnt agree with (or more correctly who doesnt agree with him) an "idiot" and a "liar" and all the rest of it. Doesnt matter if your Jewish yourself, or have two PhD's, have written 12 books, are held in the highest regard academically, it doesst matter if you have addressed US Congress or the UN General Assembly and work at the highest diplomatic post possible. It doesnt matter that you have studied and dedicated years of your life to law, politcis and conflict studies. It doesnt matter if you are called upon to advise Prime Ministers. Etc, etc etc.

 

Nope.

 

 

Read yourself people - I have provided plenty of links. Just read honestly.

 

Im out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

This thread is like the conflict in microcosm sometimes.

 

Didn't say I would not read it GFK, I will, or at least the parts I have not already seen, but, my rather extensive library contains amongst other things about two linear metres of books on the ME, from all aspects and that's apart from what I read on-line.

 

It also contains rather a lot on the nuclear conundrum. I would not wish a nuclear war upon anyone but feel the same as you, however I can and have walked both sides of the ground in the ME and have had my opinions formed by that so I find it difficult to see my logic as false.

 

However if you want a clear-eyed view of the situation in the ME you won't get it from the UN.

 

It is worth noting that Israeli authors who disagree on the policies of their nation are not uncommon, but they still live there in the main. Any Arab speaking out against Arab policies is very unlikely to have that freedom.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×