I ain't no presbyterian but

[BaggyTrousers]

A common misconception I am led to believe

What is?

That Palestinians have no rights

They can even own property As long as Israle don't either blow the shyte out of it because they allege yo have fire a rocket from it or decide its in a place they wish to colonise, then you can go & politely feck yourself towelhead.

Easterby Out

Fix - ed.

[BaggyTrousers]

Many people here are reacting to the Israel/Gazza conflict in the way many from the past outside our country have made judgement on our situation without having a true understanding of what goes on day to day. Imagine going to Forestside to do your shopping and a rocket lands from nowhere besdie you baby's buggy. Imagine sitting in your office and a rocket lands outside blowing your car apart. A year ago I was on the phone to an Israeli and asked what the blast was in the background to be told it was just another Hamas rocket. These terrorists are harboured by Palestinians. The terrorists have no respect for their own people, who are used as a convenient shield. Many here have fallen for the deceitful web of lies by many in Palestine. They harbour terrorists and are paying the price. Israel have a right to live in peace in a part of the world where all around them want them annihilated. Yes sometimes they get it wrong, but at least they stand up for their peoples right to live in peace and not be harassed by terrorists every day.

You really need to educate yourself Rugoval, has Benny Netenyahu been giving you personal lessons in Israeli PR?

I found the " Israel have a right to live in peace" incredibly funny, in a very sad sort of way, Israel have nothing whatsoever to gain by living in peace. If you want to know why just ask.

Your heart-rending "Forestside" tale would be just that, except for the odd quirk that it is, many times over, more likely to happen in Gaza than in Israel.

By the way, it beggars belief that you don't see terrorism on a state level in what Israel has been doing, not only in the current round of hostilities but also their actions over recent years in developing Gaza as an open-ish prison, where they regulate the very foodstuff that can and cannot enter Gaza, where they blockade Gaza by land sea & air, where they keep the economy just above breaking point but not quite tightly enough to cause a humanitarian crisis - except of course when they decide to blow the crap out of schools & hospitals, whether these are run by the UN or not.

Do you know what is so amazing about the USA? Despite it arming and funding Israel, ignoring the obvious fact of Israel's undeclared but generally accepted nuclear status so as not to break it's own laws, there are wonderful arrays of figures publicly available & enough moderate & liberal organisation with access to information that you can easily source "genuine" information, including well documented opinion from the State Dept. about the nasty side of Israeli policy.

Israel has ignored almost 30 binding security council resolutions, effectively it is a rogue state & a terrorist state.

I always believe that you should look carefully at both sides of any argument before you either, choose sides or talk utter ballix. You appear to have decided one side are terrorists & the other aren;t therefore your support is unquestioning but look, I'm here to help, ask away, I'll get back to you.

See I even do this shyte when I'm on holiday, such is my concern for my fellow Americans .............. sorry, posters. It's just some sound .............. ah sheeeesh, enough already

[Neil F]

Many people here are reacting to the Israel/Gazza conflict in the way many from the past outside our country have made judgement on our situation without having a true understanding of what goes on day to day. Imagine going to Forestside to do your shopping and a rocket lands from nowhere besdie you baby's buggy. Imagine sitting in your office and a rocket lands outside blowing your car apart. A year ago I was on the phone to an Israeli and asked what the blast was in the background to be told it was just another Hamas rocket. These terrorists are harboured by Palestinians. The terrorists have no respect for their own people, who are used as a convenient shield. Many here have fallen for the deceitful web of lies by many in Palestine. They harbour terrorists and are paying the price. Israel have a right to live in peace in a part of the world where all around them want them annihilated. Yes sometimes they get it wrong, but at least they stand up for their peoples right to live in peace and not be harassed by terrorists every day.

Rug; I think there's always two sides to this argument - both Hamas and Israel do a significant amount of work attempting to shape people's perceptions about the rights and wrongs of the conflict. While you may argue that many of us have fallen for the deceitful web of Hamas, I think the same argument could easily be flipped the other way; too many people fall for this, "Israel is a bastion of freedom in a sea of enemies," line. Israel may have a democratically elected government but this does not justify the actions those governments are responsible for and it entirely ignores how violence, or the threat of it at any rate, determines the Israeli government, which in turn influences the amount of violence against Gaza. Some work from a colleague of mine (http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/50/6/899.short) shows this. Right wing parties do better when the expected level of violence is high. It follows, rather logically, that right wing parties have an incentive to over-inflate expected threat come election time. Although, of course, having been elected on such a mandate, the probability of conflict itself increases. This is not the benign democracy of the West, where right wing parties do better when inflation is high and left wing parties better when unemployment is high... I personally think it's naïve to think of Israel in those sorts of terms.

Even aside from this academic nonsense, I think you are guilty of falling for a position that Israel wants many to adopt; of greatly overinflating the threat that Hamas actually pose. To take an example; the number is Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rocket fire from Gaza into Israel since 2001 is probably less than 30, with the total number of dead suggested to be about 40 (See: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/rocket-deaths-israel.html, for example). For a comparison of Palestinian deaths, see http://www.btselem.org/statistics, for example. Even ignoring the absolute numbers, which is disgusting on both sides, look at the proportion of civilian deaths, then revisit the question about Hamas or who is spinning a web of deceitful lies. I don't put as much faith in the accuracy of PCHR statistics as I do in B'Tselem but they suggest in the current outbreak, 4 of 68 Israeli dead are civilians; 1,675 Palestinian civilians are dead, about 85% of the total fatalities. Ignoring Hamas for a second, do you seriously propose that one Israeli civilian life is worth 419 Palestinians? Do you really believe that this is a proportional response from Israel? And do you really believe that a response that so disproportionately targets civilians is really about damaging Hamas? There's more to it than that; that number of civilians don't accidentally get caught in the crossfire... Of course, all of this is before we consider the fact that we know Israel's response is deliberately excessive: (see: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 4582214733).

To suggest that anyone that is disgusted by that has merely fallen for Hamas propaganda in this context is, I think, quite insulting to a lot of us.

Now, let's move onto Hamas; Hamas are an awful organisation but I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest otherwise. That they hide amongst civilians is indicative of that. Yet it is not Hamas that bears the brunt of Israeli aggression, as shown by the suggested 85% statistic above but Palestinian civilians. Do you blame Palestinian civilians for the strategic choices of Hamas? If not, your justification for Israeli aggression falls apart; Palestinian civilians, just as much as Israeli civilians, deserve to live in peace and not be harassed by violence, or the threat of violence, every day. In the specific case of Gaza, they also deserve the same rights to freedom of movement, economic freedom and live opportunity that is afforded to Israeli civilians. Israel is directly complicit in removing such rights from Gazans.

If you do believe that Palestinian civilians are complicit in Hamas' strategy, do you also believe that they deserve to be indiscriminately attacked on this basis alone? And do you believe that all 1,675 of the civilians dead were complicit? And, as a final question; if you do believe that Palestinian civilians, in general,are complicit with an organisation whose strategic choices invite death, destruction and terror, how do you rationally justify the reasons for such support?

Academically speaking, I can think of several justifications. Palestinian civilians were victims of Israeli aggression long before the formation of Hamas. In that sort of context, its easy to see why civilians might choose to support an organisation that comes along with the aim of wiping that aggressor off the face of the earth. And, frankly, each time Israel launches a deliberately excessive into Gaza, that surely only reinforces the perceptions of fear of that state and, in turn, increases the draw of a group who, at least pretend to, fight that enemy. I fear your argument largely blames Palestinian civilians in Gaza for drawing such fire unto themselves. I don't think that could be further from the truth.

[BaggyTrousers]

Many people here are reacting to the Israel/Gazza conflict in the way many from the past outside our country have made judgement on our situation without having a true understanding of what goes on day to day. Imagine going to Forestside to do your shopping and a rocket lands from nowhere besdie you baby's buggy. Imagine sitting in your office and a rocket lands outside blowing your car apart. A year ago I was on the phone to an Israeli and asked what the blast was in the background to be told it was just another Hamas rocket. These terrorists are harboured by Palestinians. The terrorists have no respect for their own people, who are used as a convenient shield. Many here have fallen for the deceitful web of lies by many in Palestine. They harbour terrorists and are paying the price. Israel have a right to live in peace in a part of the world where all around them want them annihilated. Yes sometimes they get it wrong, but at least they stand up for their peoples right to live in peace and not be harassed by terrorists every day.

Rug; I think there's always two sides to this argument - both Hamas and Israel do a significant amount of work attempting to shape people's perceptions about the rights and wrongs of the conflict. While you may argue that many of us have fallen for the deceitful web of Hamas, I think the same argument could easily be flipped the other way; too many people fall for this, "Israel is a bastion of freedom in a sea of enemies," line. Israel may have a democratically elected government but this does not justify the actions those governments are responsible for and it entirely ignores how violence, or the threat of it at any rate, determines the Israeli government, which in turn influences the amount of violence against Gaza. Some work from a colleague of mine (http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/50/6/899.short) shows this. Right wing parties do better when the expected level of violence is high. It follows, rather logically, that right wing parties have an incentive to over-inflate expected threat come election time. Although, of course, having been elected on such a mandate, the probability of conflict itself increases. This is not the benign democracy of the West, where right wing parties do better when inflation is high and left wing parties better when unemployment is high... I personally think it's naïve to think of Israel in those sorts of terms.

Even aside from this academic nonsense, I think you are guilty of falling for a position that Israel wants many to adopt; of greatly overinflating the threat that Hamas actually pose. To take an example; the number is Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rocket fire from Gaza into Israel since 2001 is probably less than 30, with the total number of dead suggested to be about 40 (See: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/rocket-deaths-israel.html, for example). For a comparison of Palestinian deaths, see http://www.btselem.org/statistics, for example. Even ignoring the absolute numbers, which is disgusting on both sides, look at the proportion of civilian deaths, then revisit the question about Hamas or who is spinning a web of deceitful lies. I don't put as much faith in the accuracy of PCHR statistics as I do in B'Tselem but they suggest in the current outbreak, 4 of 68 Israeli dead are civilians; 1,675 Palestinian civilians are dead, about 85% of the total fatalities. Ignoring Hamas for a second, do you seriously propose that one Israeli civilian life is worth 419 Palestinians? Do you really believe that this is a proportional response from Israel? And do you really believe that a response that so disproportionately targets civilians is really about damaging Hamas? There's more to it than that; that number of civilians don't accidentally get caught in the crossfire... Of course, all of this is before we consider the fact that we know Israel's response is deliberately excessive: (see: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 4582214733).

To suggest that anyone that is disgusted by that has merely fallen for Hamas propaganda in this context is, I think, quite insulting to a lot of us.

Now, let's move onto Hamas; Hamas are an awful organisation but I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest otherwise. That they hide amongst civilians is indicative of that. Yet it is not Hamas that bears the brunt of Israeli aggression, as shown by the suggested 85% statistic above but Palestinian civilians. Do you blame Palestinian civilians for the strategic choices of Hamas? If not, your justification for Israeli aggression falls apart; Palestinian civilians, just as much as Israeli civilians, deserve to live in peace and not be harassed by violence, or the threat of violence, every day. In the specific case of Gaza, they also deserve the same rights to freedom of movement, economic freedom and live opportunity that is afforded to Israeli civilians. Israel is directly complicit in removing such rights from Gazans.

If you do believe that Palestinian civilians are complicit in Hamas' strategy, do you also believe that they deserve to be indiscriminately attacked on this basis alone? And do you believe that all 1,675 of the civilians dead were complicit? And, as a final question; if you do believe that Palestinian civilians, in general,are complicit with an organisation whose strategic choices invite death, destruction and terror, how do you rationally justify the reasons for such support?

Academically speaking, I can think of several justifications. Palestinian civilians were victims of Israeli aggression long before the formation of Hamas. In that sort of context, its easy to see why civilians might choose to support an organisation that comes along with the aim of wiping that aggressor off the face of the earth. And, frankly, each time Israel launches a deliberately excessive into Gaza, that surely only reinforces the perceptions of fear of that state and, in turn, increases the draw of a group who, at least pretend to, fight that enemy. I fear your argument largely blames Palestinian civilians in Gaza for drawing such fire unto themselves. I don't think that could be further from the truth.

May I assume you found my offer of help for the Gulderer totally inadequate Neil?

[Neil F]

Not at all, Baggy. It's just that my last post was so long, I actually started writing it about this time yesterday evening... Think rigor mortis has set in in me lower half!

And if that doesn't fly, I always tend to find these things are more effective in stereo!

[Pablo]

How dare you have an opinion that differs from BT Rugover ! Clearly you must reeducate yourself. What Israel can expect from its neighbours should they not defend themselves is being played out in Iraq and Syria at the moment in a bloodbath of genocidal proportions. Maybe we we will see a thread from BT on the subject. Got your tickets for the George Galloway show on the 23rd BT ?

[pwrmoore]

How dare you have an opinion that differs from BT Rugover ! Clearly you must reeducate yourself. What Israel can expect from its neighbours should they not defend themselves is being played out in Iraq and Syria at the moment in a bloodbath of genocidal proportions. Maybe we we will see a thread from BT on the subject. Got your tickets for the George Galloway show on the 23rd BT ?

That's quite a claim Pablo. Can you provide anything to back it up?

[Neil F]

Pablo, there is absolutely no meaningful comparison between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the civil wars in Syria or Iraq, other than the ones that serve your own point. Whatever those reasons are, they are not grounded in reality. To compare these conflicts is absurd; the internal dynamics and micro-determinants of the conflicts are, literally, incomparable. As is the casus-belli. In both Iraq and Syria, the violence we witness relates to comparatively small, fragmented and divergent groups who are able to operate because earlier conflicts created a power vacuum which meant that the states in question no longer held a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within their borders. This power vacuum means that national response to the groups we read about most often is insufficient; or, at least, that it is insufficient to simultaneously face down all threats.

This is a recipe for conflict escalation on the scale we've seen because; (1) the state in question is insufficiently strong to defeat all of its enemies through strength of arms; (2) it is more difficult to negotiate or declare peace or ceasefire with such a diverse group of aggressors with such a divergent array of motives and; (3) groups engage in violence against each other (or the civilian populations that their rivals claim to represent), as well as violence aimed at realising a group's strategic goals. Nothing about such micro-determinants of violence corresponds to the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts except, maybe, that all of the conflicts in question involve some aggressors that are Muslim. I trust this is not the only basis of your comparison because if it is, you're being missed at an EDL meeting somewhere...

Second, no one is saying that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself or that it should stop defending itself. The general outpouring of anti-Israeli sentiment reflects the disproportionate scale of the response and the disproportionate civilian victimisation of the response. Put alternatively, it is difficult for many to believe that Israel's actions are those of a state defending itself against an enemy and nothing more when the civilian casualty ratio so poorly compares to other conflicts. Outrage at a civilian death toll approaching 2,000 does not equate to a belief that Israel doesn't have a right to self-defence, but it does raise questions about whether Israel's actions go beyond self-defence.

In the context of the statistics in my previous post, do you really believe that Israel is simply defending itself against a hostile aggressor? How do you explain 85% civilian casualties as a result of this self-defence? For comparison, this is significantly higher than estimates of the civilian casualty ratio of even the most heinous conflicts (WWII estimates are about 65%; WWI about 40% for means of comparison). Christ, it's even worse than the Vietnam war. If you believe that indiscriminate attacks against civilians, regardless of their political sympathies is self-defence... Well... I'm out of answers. Even taken out of the context of history, your position seriously stretches belief. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that Israel does not have the right to protect itself; the argument is that such self-protection must be proportional (see the links in my previous post for why it's not) and that it must not be actively targeted at civilians. Given the statistics, it takes wilful ignorance to believe that Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians, which, in turn, is a warcrime. This is not about Israel's right to exist but a general disgust at the actions of the state which, disproportionately, targets civilians in response to violence against it.

[Snipe Watson]

That is one heck of an oration Neil. I agree with all you say, but I think you are jumping the gun and reading more into what Pablo posted than I could see. He's right, if Israel didn't defend themselves, they would be invaded. In real terms, the state of Israel has been at war since it was established.

[Neil F]

Snipe; perhaps you're right - I'm sort of like the internet forum version of Juggernaut from the X-Men, though. Once I get started, it's hard to stop...

[Snipe Watson]

Snipe; perhaps you're right - I'm sort of like the internet forum version of Juggernaut from the X-Men, though. Once I get started, it's hard to stop...

you and me both. Perhaps we should form us a convoy!

[BaggyTrousers]

Not at all, Baggy. It's just that my last post was so long, I actually started writing it about this time yesterday evening... Think rigor mortis has set in in me lower half!

And if that doesn't fly, I always tend to find these things are more effective in stereo!

All good Neil.

[BaggyTrousers]

How dare you have an opinion that differs from BT Rugover ! Clearly you must reeducate yourself. What Israel can expect from its neighbours should they not defend themselves is being played out in Iraq and Syria at the moment in a bloodbath of genocidal proportions. Maybe we we will see a thread from BT on the subject. Got your tickets for the George Galloway show on the 23rd BT ?

I've no problem with a different opinion Pablo, I just feel free to point out errors of understanding contained therein. I think it's the kindest way, don't you agree?

Iraq and Syria eh? Wonder what precipitated the conflict in those countries, for in reality it is one conflict resulting from one general source. T.W.A.T. mean anything Pablo? It is now sectarianism on a scale similar to the Hutus & Tutsies in Rwanda. As often is the case, an intervention by well meaning "western" govts or dickheads like Bush & Blair, that leads to chronic destabilisation, regularly creating a vacuum filled by sectarian strife.

You just must know that's true Pablo, you can't be that stupid surely?

Thing is Pablo, I know a fair old bit about Israel and its conflicts, not so much about Iraq & Syria,though maybe more than you, so you'll have to excuse me, I prefer to speak about things I have some knowledge of ............. otherwise its all bullshit.................... like you posted.

Of course feel free yourself, doubtless I'll help you out and throw in my 2 nupes worth. As for G Galloway, I wouldn't give him the steam of my pish.

It occurs to me, maybe you're not quite as smart as you think you are Pablo. What say you?

[BaggyTrousers]

I'm not a presbyterian of course but I did attend the funeral of an uncle who was. Jesus what a bloody ordeal, sin this sinner that you are all sinners. Wanted to deck the sky pilot but hardly the place.

In my experience , limited to hatchings matchings and despatchings though it is, Anglicans are a touch boring though fond of a we sing song, but Methodists seem a kindly gentle lot, caring for their flock rather than proclaiming them sinners like the black mouths. The Romans are generally failed actors, with their bells candles & incense and their wee half time snack with a swally of wine & a wee taste of "I can't believe it's not Jesus". Altogether too much like a good time & then they shake haun's, fling their arms around each other and shout "Thanks be to God", top show if you're into that sort of carry on, but the dipping up and down like a hoor's drawers would do my back in. Then of course, never turn yer back on a priest, dangerous ballixs.

That said, more experienced views of Proddies & Romans are available & as for the lunatic fringe, well thankfully I haven't been exposed to those clowns though neighbours across the road are seriously feckin' daft with prayer meetings at home at every cut & turn. Wouldn't mind but the lady told Mrs T a few months back that her upright pillar of society is gagging to bum her. Save Ulster from Sodomy, I think that was big Ian's line.

That was a good wee swally the night, so time I went to ma cowp, see yis amarra.

[Pablo]

There we go. Didn't take long for BT and buddies to make it personal. As I said, anyone with a different opinion is stupid. There is a substantial counter narrative out there contradicting much of what is being delivered here in a one sided barrage. Does anyone really believe that where the Israelis not to defend themselves they would fair any better than those currently being beheaded in Iraq and Syria. I'm not referring to this particular period but in general as I take the point that some of the actions by Israel are simply wrong. Let's not forget that Hamas aspire to a global caliphate and the elimination of every man, women and child in Israel. The Israeli people have a never again attitude emanating from the holocaust. I note that it has even been opined here that no rockets fell for 18 months pre the current hostilities. Well I guess the sirens I heard last year on practically a daily basis must have been from ice cream vans and the debris in the street, falling space junk. Sorry I don't have the time to turn this into an essay supporting my point of view but I can assure you that there is plenty of documentary evidence showing Hamas deliberately hiding behind their own people and using UN establishments and vehicles in a similar manner. I take it the Hamas plans to use the tunnels for a spectacular attack over Jewish new year is a figment of Israeli intelligence imagination. Two sides to every story folks. Turning on the shields and awaiting the incoming !