Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran)

[monkfish]

Ad Lib has provided a link to the quote, the same can be found here:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21194991

Your Palestinian whataboutery is irrelevant. It doesn't make his statement any more excusable.

Your Zionist whataboutery is also irrelevant, and the fact you see the condemnation of this man's statement as part of some Isreali conspiracy is pretty sinister.

And 9/11: the whole point of this discussion is that there's a difference between 'the Muslims who were responsible' (a small group of people) 'the Muslims' (all Muslims)...

[Granny Danger]

Ad Lib has provided a link to the quote, the same can be found here:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21194991

Your Palestinian whataboutery is irrelevant. It doesn't make his statement any more excusable.

Your Zionist whataboutery is also irrelevant, and the fact you see the condemnation of this man's statement as part of some Isreali conspiracy is pretty sinister.

And 9/11: the whole point of this discussion is that there's a difference between 'the Muslims who were responsible' (a small group of people) 'the Muslims' (all Muslims)...

There nothing sinister about it, and whataboutery is an oft used phrase on P&B for folk who don't want to address the issues.

Criticise Israel in any way and you will be condemned. In the first instance the condemnation will concentrate on any slight miss wording that you may have used as a way of undermining the point you are attempting to make.

Meanwhile use of pejorative terms like 'militant' when described any Palestinians involved in incidents is not only acceptable but widely used.

[monkfish]

Fucks sake. I'm out.

[SS-18 ICBM]

Fucks sake. I'm out.

Wise decision.

[Ad Lib]

Nobody said that it was run by "the Jews". Are you drunk?!

If it's not run by "the Jews" then "the Jews" aren't responsible for the actions of the Israeli government against the Palestinian people and settlers in Gaza and the West Bank.

Ad Lib, I thought you were Mr Nuance. Why are you pretending not to understand what was meant by the admittedly clumsy statement?

It's not just that it was a clumsy statement. When given the first opportunity to clarify or retract it, he re-affirmed it with the words "the Jews". He was tarring millions of people who are, variously not Israeli or are Israeli but not supporters or complicit persons in the actions of the Israeli state.

Pointing out that it's a wee bit off to say 'the Jews' aren't responsible for Palestinian atrocities isn't really being pedantic.

It would only be clumsy if the guy was an off the street idiot. He's not.

Would you also be OK with someone saying 'the Muslims' were responsible for 9/11?

Precisely this. If it were simply a slip of the tongue I could understand that, but he repeated it several hours later when given the opportunity to withdraw. He has since apologised and clarified his remarks and removed the offending post from his website but his language was clear.

I get the point your making, but my understanding of what the guy said (still can't find the original, only what other sources are claiming) is that it was the Jews in Israel. Now not all Israelis are Jewish, though there's no evidence that non Israeli Jews support the actions against Palestinians, and there are many Jews in Israel that are totally opposed to successive governments' policies towards the Palestinians. So in those respects the statement, even as reported, could have been better worded.

He's removed the original post from his website, but he did issue an initial follow-up statement affirming and repeating the use of the term "the Jews". It is not an acceptable term of reference to describe the actions of the Israeli government. It is not "the Jews" pushing for these settlements. They are *Zionists*. That's not the same.

Equally, however, how often do we hear Palestinians described as 'militants', a pejorative description, whenever there are clashes between them and the 'Israeli security forces'. No outrage there whether the comments are coming from the politicians or the media.

Some Palestinians are militants, though I wouldn't use that word because of its pejorative inferences in certain circles. Someone who engages in war-like behaviour but who is not the recognised military of a sovereign state is a militant, a militia or a paramilitarist. The Israeli security forces are the official arm of a sovereign state. They're not the same. That doesn't mean that the militants have less of a moral claim to virtue.

This attack on David Ward is just another facet of the pro Israeli lobby, any criticism, implicit or explicit, of Israel must be jumped on from a great height. The myth that is perpetrated that anti Zionism is anti semetism is part of the same mindset. We need more condemnation of what is happening to the Palestinians, not less.

"the Jews" = religious/ethnic group

"Zionists" = people who believe in establishing permanently a state encompassing the area defined in the Land of Israel, based on Ezekiel and Numbers in the Torah and establishing a form of nationalism around the idea of a Jewish state

It is therefore as ridiculous to blame "the Jews" for Zionist tendencies in the behaviour of the Israeli government. "The Jews" are not Zionists.

And I believe that the guys that hijacked the planes during 9/11 were Muslims.

But we don't say "it's all fault of the Muslims" because that's incorrect and whips up xenophobic feeling towards an entire community far larger than the pocket of fundamentalist extremists that perpetrated those acts.

Criticise Israel in any way and you will be condemned. In the first instance the condemnation will concentrate on any slight miss wording that you may have used as a way of undermining the point you are attempting to make.

Untrue. When Israel commits war crimes I am one of the first to criticise them. The point is this wasn't a "slight miswording" but an explicit statement, re-affirmed and only some time later retracted, accusing an entire race/religion of being culpable for the war crimes of a state that many won't have ever been to, let alone are they citizens, and many of whom are are neither Zionists nor condone the aggressive acts of Israel onto Palestinian territory.

Meanwhile use of pejorative terms like 'militant' when described any Palestinians involved in incidents is not only acceptable but widely used.

When Palestine has an internationally recognised military force directly instructed by its instruments of state and does not engage indirectly through non-state actors like the military wing of Hamas (which is no more "Palestine" than the IRA was "Ireland" in the '80s) it is only then not accurate to refer to them as militias or militants.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Ad Lib

[welshbairn]

When Palestine has an internationally recognised military force directly instructed by its instruments of state and does not engage indirectly through non-state actors like the military wing of Hamas (which is no more "Palestine" than the IRA was "Ireland" in the '80s) it is only then not accurate to refer to them as militias or militants.

Hamas are the democratically elected Government of the Gaza Strip. Their military wing are as legitimate, if not more so, than the Israeli Defence Forces, particularly those operating illegally in the West Bank.

[Ad Lib]

Hamas are the democratically elected Government of the Gaza Strip. Their military wing are as legitimate, if not more so, than the Israeli Defence Forces, particularly those operating illegally in the West Bank.

That's like saying that the IRA would have been legitimised by Sinn Fein winning seats at Stormont. Don't talk pish.

[welshbairn]

That's like saying that the IRA would have been legitimised by Sinn Fein winning seats at Stormont. Don't talk pish.

No it's not. It's like Israel using Irgun to form their armed forces after their state was established.

[wunfellaff]

That's like saying that the IRA would have been legitimised by Sinn Fein winning seats at Stormont. Don't talk pish.

Sinn Fein is to do with the IRA in what way? They split at the same time as the Provos...............

[Ad Lib]

No it's not. It's like Israel using Irgun to form their armed forces after their state was established.

Completely disanalogous situation right there. First of all, the Israel Defence Forces already existed as a body of hte state when Irgun were subsumed. Secondly they were ACTUALLY formally subsumed by a state that was recognised as sovereign by places like the UN.

The paramilitary wing of Hamas has not been formally recognised as a legitimate state actor by pretty much anyone, nor even do Hamas purport that it does. That's before you ignore the fact that many of the rocket attacks on Israel come from groups with no formal links to Hamas, or to the elected Palestinian Authority, and operate quite independently and without instruction from any state body.

The mere fact that you are part of the paramilitary wing of a political group that happens to be in government does not make you the armed forces of a state. You are still a militia or paramilitary group. You can tell the key difference because if Hamas loses an election to Fatah, they don't do what Fatah tells them to do.

[Ad Lib]

Sinn Fein is to do with the IRA in what way? They split at the same time as the Provos...............

That's scarcely the point though. In so far as the IRA and its derivatives were in any way linked to the political organisation of Sinn Fein, it was absolutely irrelevant as to the question of whether they constituted a state military or a paramilitary organisation.

[SS-18 ICBM]

Sinn Fein is to do with the IRA in what way? They split at the same time as the Provos...............

Are you P&B's resident expert on the history of N.Ire's paramilitary goups? Just asking!

[Granny Danger]

Completely disanalogous situation right there. First of all, the Israel Defence Forces already existed as a body of hte state when Irgun were subsumed. Secondly they were ACTUALLY formally subsumed by a state that was recognised as sovereign by places like the UN.

The paramilitary wing of Hamas has not been formally recognised as a legitimate state actor by pretty much anyone, nor even do Hamas purport that it does. That's before you ignore the fact that many of the rocket attacks on Israel come from groups with no formal links to Hamas, or to the elected Palestinian Authority, and operate quite independently and without instruction from any state body.

The mere fact that you are part of the paramilitary wing of a political group that happens to be in government does not make you the armed forces of a state. You are still a militia or paramilitary group. You can tell the key difference because if Hamas loses an election to Fatah, they don't do what Fatah tells them to do.

You're sounding like a Zionist apologist, hiding behind technicalities rather than denouncing the acts of Israel. At a different time you would have been comparing the 'legitimacy' of the armed forces of the apartheid regime to the militias connected to the PAC and ANC.

[welshbairn]

Completely disanalogous situation right there. First of all, the Israel Defence Forces already existed as a body of hte state when Irgun were subsumed. Secondly they were ACTUALLY formally subsumed by a state that was recognised as sovereign by places like the UN.

The paramilitary wing of Hamas has not been formally recognised as a legitimate state actor by pretty much anyone, nor even do Hamas purport that it does. That's before you ignore the fact that many of the rocket attacks on Israel come from groups with no formal links to Hamas, or to the elected Palestinian Authority, and operate quite independently and without instruction from any state body.

The mere fact that you are part of the paramilitary wing of a political group that happens to be in government does not make you the armed forces of a state. You are still a militia or paramilitary group. You can tell the key difference because if Hamas loses an election to Fatah, they don't do what Fatah tells them to do.

Would you claim that Gazans have no right to a defense force? If not, is there a body with more legitimacy than Hamas? (the groups acting independently of Hamas are not the issue here, they can't claim any mandate.)

Edited January 27, 2013 by welshbairn

[wunfellaff]

That's scarcely the point though. In so far as the IRA and its derivatives were in any way linked to the political organisation of Sinn Fein, it was absolutely irrelevant as to the question of whether they constituted a state military or a paramilitary organisation.

Oh yes it is a point....... if you can't get basic facts correct in matters close to home............. Sinn Fein was linked to the IRA for about 50 years . That stopped circa 1970.

Are you P&B's resident expert on the history of N.Ire's paramilitary goups? Just asking!

Hardly, just old, and grew up in the 70's near a town, what 20 miles away from NI ? which was a damn site more relevant than Glasgow. Tv reception etc was Ulster. so got the English games

[SS-18 ICBM]

Would you also be OK with someone saying 'the Muslims' were responsible for 9/11?

People in the UK did and still do, every minute of every day. It doesn't concern me.

[Ad Lib]

You're sounding like a Zionist apologist, hiding behind technicalities rather than denouncing the acts of Israel. At a different time you would have been comparing the 'legitimacy' of the armed forces of the apartheid regime to the militias connected to the PAC and ANC.

Don't be utterly ridiculous. I support Palestinian statehood in line with something broadly resembling the Oslo Accords. I utterly condemn the ongoing settlements and the disgraceful escalation by Netanyahu's government.

Saying that Hamas' military wing is a paramilitary or militia or that it contains militants doesn't mean I don't support the right of the Palestinian people to defend themselves or that I think these militants are acting in any way under a less moral cause than those in the IDF. But they are emphatically not state-militaries, yet they are militarised. That, descriptively, makes them paramilitaries or militias. The fighters in such organisations are militants. That's what that word means.

Would you claim that Gazans have no right to a defense force? If not, is there a body with more legitimacy than Hamas? (the groups acting independently of Hamas are not the issue here, they can't claim any mandate.)

No I wouldn't claim that at all. I think the Palestinian Authority should both be recognised as a sovereign state and failing that I think it should have an explicitly recognised state defence force (by extension, subjected properly to the rigours of international law and laws concerning war crimes (which have regrettably been ignored with impunity by the IDF).

I don't consider the appropriate form for that militarised defence to be through the political organisation of Hamas. It should be a body accountable to the PLC and not to the ruling party. Hamas did not win the majority of the popular vote in the Palestinian elections, but a majority of the seats. They are not the Palestinian Authority and they are not the body through which Palestinian statehood should be achieved. I have considerable sympathy with groups like Hamas having military wings in the absence of such a formally legitimised defence force for Palestine, but I don't think that means either that it's inaccurate to call them militants or that it in any way excuses blaming "the Jews" for the actions of the Israeli state.

Oh yes it is a point....... if you can't get basic facts correct in matters close to home............. Sinn Fein was linked to the IRA for about 50 years . That stopped circa 1970.

The formal links were severed in the 70s, absolutely. But the point is whether formal or informal, no links between a political organisation and an armed body of fighters constitute the legitimate army of a state unless explicitly recognised as being so by that state. Hamas' armed wing is not recognised by the PLC as its army, so it isn't its army.

People in the UK did and still do, every minute of every day. It doesn't concern me.

"Britain's full of racists and xenophobes, so blaming 'the Jews' for Palestine is okay"

Glad we've cleared that one up.

[SS-18 ICBM]

"Britain's full of racists and xenophobes, so blaming 'the Jews' for Palestine is okay"

Glad we've cleared that one up.

If that is true it has much in common with Israel.

[wunfellaff]

The formal links were severed in the 70s, absolutely. But the point is whether formal or informal, no links between a political organisation and an armed body of fighters constitute the legitimate army of a state unless explicitly recognised as being so by that state. Hamas' armed wing is not recognised by the PLC as its army, so it isn't its army.

You specifically referred to Stormont. So I call ''crap''.

[wunfellaff]

"Britain's full of racists and xenophobes, so blaming 'the Jews' for Palestine is okay"

Glad we've cleared that one up.

Is it twice or three times that there has been official pogroms against jews within these Isles?