Israel is complicated

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think it was clearly a mistake creating the state of Israel where it is, but that was 74 years ago. We have to deal with the situation as it is now. The situation is now that Hamas wants to genocide the Jews. Israel is defending itself and innocent people are dying as a result. There's no solution to this.

True, Israel is killing a lot of innocent Palestinians. Hamas are killing significantly fewer innocent Israelis. Hence people are praying for Palestine. Not really sure why the author of the article finds this surprising. I think it's a good that human nature has evolved to consider large numbers of dead innocent people a bad thing. We went into lockdown based on the premise that we wanted to prevent large numbers of dead people. 

It is a humdinger of a problem. How do you change the mindset of wanting to kill someone who has stolen your land and forced you off it at gun point? Not really sure you can, can you? And fast forward to today rather than looking back in history, how do you stop wanting to kill someone who steals even more land and burns your olive groves and restricts your access to clean water http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8327188.stm and bulldozes more houses and shoots your children so they can expand their territory.  The Israelis seem quite prepared to kill people over land so I don't think wanting to kill people over land is a mindset that is peculiar to the Palestinians.

What would a British mindset be if immigrants to Britain started forcing existing British people from their homes at gunpoint and taking over the land, denying them access to clean water and bulldozing their houses to create a boundary to keep immigrants safe from British retaliation? Would they think their homes are not worth fighting, killing and dying for and just head to France with their begging bowls to be processed as refugees instead?

[jeremyp]

I didn't.

Did too!

How? By presenting a simple stereotype of the "other side" as terrorists. It's racism pure and simple, and there is no solution to that ... except, er... to stop being racist.

Anyway, Hamas are Palestinian aren't they?

What if they are? Most Palestinians are not in Hamas.

[Udayana]

Did too!
What if they are? Most Palestinians are not in Hamas.

Hamas are a subset of the Palestinians. The racism of the writer was not in his criticism of Hamas but in completely ignoring the rights, needs and desires of the Palestinians as a group. 
 
If everything is fine except for Hamas terrorism - what is so complicated?


 

[jeremyp]

Hamas are a subset of the Palestinians.

So?

The racism of the writer was not in his criticism of Hamas but in completely ignoring the rights, needs and desires of the Palestinians as a group.

He didn't ignore the rights, needs and desires of Palestinians.   

If everything is fine except for Hamas terrorism - what is so complicated?

Who is claiming everything is fine except for Hamas terrorism? It's not fine. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the problems are insoluble.

[Owlswing]

He didn't ignore the rights, needs, and desires of Palestinians.   Who is claiming everything is fine except for Hamas terrorism? It's not fine. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the problems are insoluble.

And will remain so (insoluble) as long as each group has supporters who are willing to ignore those that they support killing those that others support. This will remain the case at least as long as there are outsiders supporting both sides with words, missiles, and other munitions!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So?
He didn't ignore the rights, needs and desires of Palestinians.   Who is claiming everything is fine except for Hamas terrorism? It's not fine. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the problems are insoluble.

I think he ignored the rights, needs and desires of Palestinians when he said "It seems that every country has a right to defend itself from acts of war… apart from the one Jewish one."

His fixation on Jewish is one of the reasons why the problem is insoluble so not sure why he is fed up when he is part of the problem.  Similarly while Hamas remains fixated on grandiose rallying slogans such as defeating "the Zionist invaders" and Hamas “rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” and wants to establish an Islamic caliphate in Palestine, they are also part of the problem. Their 2017 statement of principles says that the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza is a “formula of national consensus.” so maybe Hamas is considering an alternative to destroying the state of Israel. Or maybe Hamas are playing the same game as the Zionists have played since 1948 ie. gain a smaller state and try to expand from there. 

In this country and other countries where "woke celebrities" are, according to the fanciful imaginings of the author, "unwittingly giving their celebrity endorsement to terror" or "unknowingly becoming Marketing Execs for Hamas in Europe", the British government as far as I know do not have stated policies to ensure Britain remains a white Anglo-Saxon state. The Israeli government on the other hand has repeatedly stated its aim of preserving the racial purity of its state. I don't think discrimination based on race is going to solve this problem especially if you have invaded someone else's land based on a belief that God gave your religious adherents the land.

"woke" celebrities are right to be critical of such discrimination. Unless those woke celebrities are Saudis in which case that would be hypocritical as the Saudi government discriminates against non-Saudis.

Holding the Israeli government accountable for its excessive use of force, illegal occupation, land grabs, brutalisation of Palestinian civilians etc etc the same way people would hold Britain or any other country or Hamas similarly accountable for brutality is I think a sign of a decent human being whereas the author of the article spins it into "demonising"  Israel. Condemning Israel's treatment of Palestinian civilians is not supporting Hamas and trying to spin it as such shows the author cares little for the rights, needs and desires of Palestinians. His article appears to be one long rant at being "fed up" that Jewish people do not have a special pass to brutalise non-Jews without being held accountable for their actions.

The author even goes on to disparage accusations that Israel is committing genocide by its attack on Palestinians, arguing that anyone who makes that claim "is beyond sense and reason, fuelled by hate." I think the author is beyond sense and reason and fuelled by hate if he cannot see that it is possible to argue for a genocide against the Palestinians.

Of course to prove genocide it means proving the Israeli government has an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Intent is always difficult to prove and it is a question for the courts to decide. Until any such court case, it is certainly possible to argue there has been a genocide based on Article 2 of the Geneva Convention. Article 2 states “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. 

[jeremyp]

I think he ignored the rights, needs and desires of Palestinians when he said "It seems that every country has a right to defend itself from acts of war… apart from the one Jewish one."

In what way?

His fixation on Jewish is one of the reasons why the problem is insoluble so not sure why he is fed up when he is part of the problem.

No, what he is fed up with is people who fail to see that the problem does have two sides. Even on this thread somebody declared "Israel is the oppressor and Palestine the oppressed" without even thinking for a second.

Similarly while Hamas remains fixated on grandiose rallying slogans such as defeating "the Zionist invaders" and Hamas “rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” and wants to establish an Islamic caliphate in Palestine, they are also part of the problem. Their 2017 statement of principles says that the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza is a “formula of national consensus.” so maybe Hamas is considering an alternative to destroying the state of Israel. Or maybe Hamas are playing the same game as the Zionists have played since 1948 ie. gain a smaller state and try to expand from there.

Well if Hamas is considering an alternative to destroying the state of Israel they should, perhaps, stop bombarding Israel with rockets.

In this country and other countries where "woke celebrities" are, according to the fanciful imaginings of the author, "unwittingly giving their celebrity endorsement to terror" or "unknowingly becoming Marketing Execs for Hamas in Europe", the British government as far as I know do not have stated policies to ensure Britain remains a white Anglo-Saxon state. The Israeli government on the other hand has repeatedly stated its aim of preserving the racial purity of its state. I don't think discrimination based on race is going to solve this problem especially if you have invaded someone else's land based on a belief that God gave your religious adherents the land.

You know that is rubbish. There are Palestinians who live in Israel. They even have elected representatives in the parliament. There is no desire in Israel to genocide the Palestinians. The same cannot be said for Hamas or of the Islamic state that backs it with respect to Israel.

The author even goes on to disparage accusations that Israel is committing genocide by its attack on Palestinians, arguing that anyone who makes that claim "is beyond sense and reason, fuelled by hate." I think the author is beyond sense and reason and fuelled by hate if he cannot see that it is possible to argue for a genocide against the Palestinians.

Israel is not trying to genocide the Palestinians. That's why people who make that claim are beyond sense and reason. If Israel wanted to genocide the Palestinians, they'd have done it by now.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In what way? No, what he is fed up with is people who fail to see that the problem does have two sides. Even on this thread somebody declared "Israel is the oppressor and Palestine the oppressed" without even thinking for a second.

That is because in a situation where Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians the oppressed. There isn't a 2nd side to that situation whereby it is ok for Israelis to illegally occupy someone else's land.   

You know that is rubbish. There are Palestinians who live in Israel. They even have elected representatives in the parliament. There is no desire in Israel to genocide the Palestinians. The same cannot be said for Hamas or of the Islamic state that backs it with respect to Israel.

Except you know it's not rubbish. That's a stupid argument that because there are Palestinians who live in Israel and have some representation that the Israeli state is not racist for trying to preserve a Jewish state identity. Just because there were black people living in the USA and black Mayors in the USA from about 1867 we don't pretend that the US states did not have racist and discriminatory policies throughout that continued throughout the 1960s onwards even after the Civil Rights movement.   

Israel is not trying to genocide the Palestinians. That's why people who make that claim are beyond sense and reason. If Israel wanted to genocide the Palestinians, they'd have done it by now.

That is for a court to decide - you are not qualified to make the decision on whether the intent is there. As there are actions carried out by the Israeli government that meet the actus rea criteria for genocide in Article 2 of the Geneva Convention I can see why people argue it is genocide. It's a complicated legal issue - hence people who argue that Israel is carrying out a genocide are not beyond sense and reason. I can see why people would want to try to spin it like that and while people continue to try to give people who happen to identify with Jewish culture a free pass for illegal acts by claiming that holding them accountable is anti-Semitic, you're right the problem is insoluble. 

Also, saying they would have done it by now is a stupid argument. Israel are carrying out acts that meet the actus rea of at least 2 of the acts that qualify as genocide according to Article 2 of the Geneva Convention e.g.
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

The question is whether it can be proved that Israel carried out these acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group i.e. the Palestinians. Proving intent is difficult when it comes to genocide, especially as we have not had it tested in court. Not sure which court has jurisdiction to test it as Israel is not a state party to the Rome Statute upon which the ICC was established

So what is it that you think Israel would have done by now? 

[Udayana]

So?
He didn't ignore the rights, needs and desires of Palestinians.   Who is claiming everything is fine except for Hamas terrorism? It's not fine. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the problems are insoluble.

Does he discuss their complaints? It seemed to me that he was on a rant about criticism of Israeli actions in responding to Hamas, with no consideration of the impact of the West Bank occupation and settlements or other Israeli actions.   
 
I think it is entirely soluble - but neither the Israeli gov nor Hamas (or other Palestinian terrorists) want it solved.

Even when they look at the situation from the pov of the other side, they end up with same conclusions - like Ben-Gurion. If you start with a racist outlook you can't help projecting it on the other.
 

[jeremyp]

That is because in a situation where Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians the oppressed.

What about the situation where Hamas is illegally bombarding Israel with rockets?

See, it's complicated.

Also, saying they would have done it by now is a stupid argument. Israel are carrying out acts that meet the actus rea of at least 2 of the acts that qualify as genocide according to Article 2 of the Geneva Convention e.g.
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

Those two items in isolation do not constitute genocide. There has to be an intent to wipe out the group. This is what Hamas has and Israel does not have.

The question is whether it can be proved that Israel carried out these acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group i.e. the Palestinians. Proving intent is difficult

Of course it's difficult, because there is no intent in this case.

[jeremyp]

Does he discuss their complaints? It seemed to me that he was on a rant about criticism of Israeli actions in responding to Hamas, with no consideration of the impact of the West Bank occupation and settlements or other Israeli actions.   

It's only a rant because you disagree with him and you don't want to engage with his arguments.
 

I think it is entirely soluble - but neither the Israeli gov nor Hamas (or other Palestinian terrorists) want it solved.

No, it's not soluble. The Israeli government wants to keep Israel safe for its citizens that means they want Israel to continue to exist. The Palestinian terrorists want to wipe out Israel. If the Israeli government backs down, lots of Israelis die. If the Palestinian terrorists back down, there is no longer any reason for their organisations to exist. Not only that, their belief that all the Jews must die is driven by religious fervour. Both sides are in an existential crisis and therefore neither can back down.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What about the situation where Hamas is illegally bombarding Israel with rockets?

What about it in relation to Israel's deportation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian civilians and illegal occupation of the West Bank and Israel's illegal settlement building. Or are you saying that Israel is behaving illegally because Hamas are behaving illegally and they are both as bad as each other?

See, it's complicated.

Only for apologists for Israel's illegal occupation and illegal land grabs. If legality does not matter anymore then what does it matter if Hamas illegally fire rockets from Gaza? If we're saying terrorist actions by Israel to terrorise Palestinians is as bad as terrorist actions by Hamas to terrorise Israelis then I agree. If you are going to differentiate between the 2 in favour of Israel you have to come up with an objective formula why terrorising Palestinians is not as bad as terrorising Israelis that does not involve a racist or prejudiced motive on your part, which you can't do.
 

Those two items in isolation do not constitute genocide. There has to be an intent to wipe out the group. This is what Hamas has and Israel does not have.

You are not qualified to decide whether Israel has the intent to wipe out the Palestinians as a state. Intent is decided based on behaviour. If you make it impossible for a viable Palestinian state to exist, you don't actually need to make a explicit declaration of intent.

Of course it's difficult, because there is no intent in this case.

See above. You are not qualified to decide that though you can believe whatever you want. It would be a legal matter for the courts to decide. The only problem is Israel and the US think Israel is above being held accountable for its actions. The US, one of five permanent members of the UN security council with veto power, has a track record of vetoing action in relation to Israel.

However, I just looked it up and as the illegally Occupied Palestinian Territories have submitted to ICC jurisdiction, the ICC can investigate allegations that Israel is engaged in crimes against humanity in the form of apartheid and persecution in the Occupied Territories.

The ICC has started looking into war crimes allegations against Israel, including Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank. The ICC will also examine whether Hamas and other groups in Gaza have committed war crimes by firing rockets at Israel.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/icc-prosecutor-warns-against-crimes-escalating-israel-palestinian-violence-2021-05-13/

So the author of the article can carry on feeling fed up because of his prejudices and biases but it looks like celebrities are right to pray for the Palestinians...as opposed to praying for Hamas...and praying for Palestinians does not mean endorsing terrorism. The ICC seems to have no trouble differentiating between the concept of Palestinian civilians who may need protection from alleged apartheid, persecution and war crimes by Israel and Israel legitimately defending itself from Hamas rockets without resorting to war crimes etc etc.