Trump's move on Jerusalem

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 9:27 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:17 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 8:59 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-09 5:19 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 2:56 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 2:36 PM

 

Not recognised by the UN as the capital and a move roundly condemned by our government and many others. According to a comment in The Times today the Israeli government had not made this issue a priority in any peace process. I accept the peace process is stalled but where was the reason to engage reverse?

 

So when did the UN get to decide where a sovereign country has its capital? :-| ........

If I recall, it was the UN that decided where the whole of Israel could go, so why not its capital?

 

So its not a sovereign nation then? ;-) ........

 

......and in theory the UN could move our capital to? :-| .......

 

I vote for Skeggy to be the UK's new capital city B-) .........

 

 

Have you read any of the materials on line in BGs links Dave or others that describe what is at the root of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel over Jerusalem?

 

I know what the problem is ;-) ........Its called religion *-) .......

 

No it isn't

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:33 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 9:27 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:17 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 8:59 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-09 5:19 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 2:56 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 2:36 PM

 

Not recognised by the UN as the capital and a move roundly condemned by our government and many others. According to a comment in The Times today the Israeli government had not made this issue a priority in any peace process. I accept the peace process is stalled but where was the reason to engage reverse?

 

So when did the UN get to decide where a sovereign country has its capital? :-| ........

If I recall, it was the UN that decided where the whole of Israel could go, so why not its capital?

 

So its not a sovereign nation then? ;-) ........

 

......and in theory the UN could move our capital to? :-| .......

 

I vote for Skeggy to be the UK's new capital city B-) .........

 

 

Have you read any of the materials on line in BGs links Dave or others that describe what is at the root of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel over Jerusalem?

 

I know what the problem is ;-) ........Its called religion *-) .......

 

No it isn't

 

Oh yes it is >:-) .......

 

 

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2017-12-09 7:14 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-09 5:19 PM

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 2:56 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 2:36 PMNot recognised by the UN as the capital and a move roundly condemned by our government and many others. According to a comment in The Times today the Israeli government had not made this issue a priority in any peace process. I accept the peace process is stalled but where was the reason to engage reverse?

So when did the UN get to decide where a sovereign country has its capital? :-| ........

If I recall, it was the UN that decided where the whole of Israel could go, so why not its capital?

Israel violated international law in 1980 by declaring Jerusalem as it's capital and annexing East Jerusalem. Laws don't apply in Trumpworld though whose House of Cards continues to crumble daily....the latest being Flynn caught lying to the FBI who ironically was shouting this when riding the wave of euphoria;

(lol)Then there's the question of who is going to build the Embassy. The Israeli's? Nope......highly unlikely.Palestinians? Nope.......definitely not.Yanks? No way. Now if Trump had been a bit nicer to Mexico he might just have got some labourers from there.....but not now.Then there is a small but not insignificant question of staff. Any volunteers to sit slap bang in the middle of a war zone?Nope......thought not. (lol)(lol)

You really do come out with some unbelievable garbage at times.

This recognition was/is not of Trumps making.  As has been said many times the resolution was passed over twenty years ago and this decision to implement that resolution now is one made by the Administration not just by one man.

[RogerC]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 8:54 AMExcellent post BG. The "firepower" stats are staggering.

Sorry Veronica but who gives a monkeys about who has what firepower.  It is 'always' Hamas or Hezbollah or some other Arab organisation that provokes Israel into retaliation something that is seriously absent amongst the outcry from those who seem to be apologists for acts of violence.

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2017-12-09 11:28 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-09 9:12 PMInteresting comment on the peace process........it is regarding who lobbed rockets at who.........why it was those terrorist barstewards Hamas. More interesting is everyone and his dog seems to be getting on the bash Trump bandwagon but there's a deafening silence from certain quarters over the Arab world has been running off at the mouth about instigating violence and aggression and now actually lobbing rockets. Serious question all you 'defenders' and Trump bashers.........where is your justification for the Arab words and Hamas action?

Just to bring some kind of balance into this it's perhaps useful to look at who has what. Published eight years ago admittedly so the figure compliments will be larger now, but it does give some idea of how the scales pan out.https://imeu.org/article/comparison-of-millitary-strength-of-israel-and-the-palestiniansWhat's your view of Israels continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land and violation of international law? Or is that ok?https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/israels-occupation-50-years-of-palestinian-oppression/There is no justification for indiscriminate firing of rockets from Hamas, just as there is no justification for illegal occupation of Palestinian land and violation of international laws by Israel. I'm afraid neither are imo virtuous examples of peace loving law abiding countries but the vast military might of a dominant Israel armed with nuclear weapons against a country armed with a few rockets and catapults cannot be ignored.For a while both countries had remained relatively calm.....so shame on Trump for provocatively poking a hornets nest. No doubt annoyed his pathetically childish baiting of DPRK got no reaction other than making himself look increasingly foolish to the eyes of the world.

Interesting injection of irrelevance.  Who has the biggest stick really doesn't matter.  So Israel has nukes....it didn't stop Hussein from lobbing Scuds on them in Gulf War 1 did it?  Did Israel retaliate?  No.

Looking back over a few decades is a good indication of what Israel has had to contend with over the years, indeed from it's very inception in modern times:

Upon independence, Israel was invaded by the armies of six Arab nations: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Yet another example:

On Nov. 13, 1964, Syrian forces stationed on the top of the Golan Heights, a plateau overlooking Israeli territory in the Jordan River valley, fired on Israeli tractors.  Israeli forces returned fire.  Syrian artillery then targeted Israeli civilian villages. 

Just take a look at the link and it is clear to see who the regular aggressors/instigators of war in the region are(ignore the Syria wars wording.  The article covers much more than that):

https://www.historyguy.com/israel_syria_wars.htm#.Wi1E9_mLSfc

So given your injection of just who has the biggest 'gun' I reckon Israel has been extremely controlled in it's responses to overt and unnecessary aggression emanating from the Arab world.

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-12-10 2:25 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 8:54 AMExcellent post BG. The "firepower" stats are staggering.

Sorry Veronica but who gives a monkeys about who has what firepower.  It is 'always' Hamas or Hezbollah or some other Arab organisation that provokes Israel into retaliation something that is seriously absent amongst the outcry from those who seem to be apologists for acts of violence.

I agree Roger that the respective firepower of the protagonaists is not the issue here. I was just expressing surprise at Israeli firepower. Where I depart from your analysis is that it is Hamas et al who are to be judged as the sole provocateurs. If any country decides to take over land that doesn't belong to them do they expect those who are dispossessed to do nothing about it? Sad to say that terrorism, which can never been condoned, is often borne of injustice. Righting the historical wrongs by a proper negotiated settlement is always to be preferred of course. We managed it in Northern Ireland because we understood that some of the grievances that led to the troubles had to be resolved to secure peace. That Trump should show such insensitivity and ignorance over the issues relating to Jerusalem is a shocking indictment on his competence.

[RogerC]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 2:51 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-10 2:25 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 8:54 AMExcellent post BG. The "firepower" stats are staggering.

Sorry Veronica but who gives a monkeys about who has what firepower.  It is 'always' Hamas or Hezbollah or some other Arab organisation that provokes Israel into retaliation something that is seriously absent amongst the outcry from those who seem to be apologists for acts of violence.

I agree Roger that the respective firepower of the protagonaists is not the issue here. I was just expressing surprise at Israeli firepower. Where I depart from your analysis is that it is Hamas et al who are to be judged as the sole provocateurs. If any country decides to take over land that doesn't belong to them do they expect those who are dispossessed to do nothing about it? Sad to say that terrorism, which can never been condoned, is often borne of injustice. Righting the historical wrongs by a proper negotiated settlement is always to be preferred of course. We managed it in Northern Ireland because we understood that some of the grievances that led to the troubles had to be resolved to secure peace. That Trump should show such insensitivity and ignorance over the issues relating to Jerusalem is a shocking indictment on his competence.

My intent was to show that in more modern times it is Hamas, PLO, Hezbollah, Syria etc that has done the greater amount of militaristic activity causing Israel to retaliate.  I am aware Israel, over the years has acted first but one has to admit that the 'aggressor' activity has on the greatest number of occasions been the Arab nations and 'terrorist' organisations.

You say Trump has shown insensitivity over the issue.  Why is it that Trump is being blamed for this?  It is his administration and a totally different administration that decades ago determined this should be the case.  It appears Trump is the only president who was prepared to enact the will of Congress and the HoR. 

Regarding 'insensitivity' surely it is rather 'insensitive' to use the announcement to justify lobbing rockets into innocent people on the other side of a border?

To be honest I am heartily sick of all this 'placate the Arab nations' that is going on.  It is the Arab world that delivers death and destruction on innocents through invasion, making war on it's own people, using chemical weapons, making large sections of their own people refugees, using State machinery to torture and murder people and so many other acts that the civilised world finds abhorrent yet all we hear is defence after defence after defence of Arab world activity.

So given that Israel has a much bigger stick to wield, than Hamas or other factions (Black September...remember them?) surely it is to their credit that they have shown such restraint?  Something that seems to be lost amongst the Arabist apologists.

As for the NI situation I am aware that took years of 'behind the scenes' negotiations with local politicians/terrorists right up to the President of the USA and his lady intervening on a great number of occasions.  Yes talks were necessary but it was B'liar (read Mo Mowlems autobiography) who offered the ultimate 'carrot' to Sin Fein/terrorist scum of those 'get out of jail free' letters to a number of known murderers.  It still makes my stomach churn when I see McGuinness, thankfully rotting in hell, and his co murdering scum Gerry Adams anywhere but rotting in jail...but that's another issue.

[pepe63xnotuse]

Sorry for trawling out a tired cliché but wasn't it Peter Ustinov who said.- "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.” .......?......

 

If the likes of Hamas etc (or the PLO of old) were on "our side" they'd probably be seen as freedom fighters..

 

..if someone was forcibly claiming, and building on, "our" land , what would you want "us" to do..?

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-12-10 3:05 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 2:51 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-10 2:25 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 8:54 AMExcellent post BG. The "firepower" stats are staggering.

Sorry Veronica but who gives a monkeys about who has what firepower.  It is 'always' Hamas or Hezbollah or some other Arab organisation that provokes Israel into retaliation something that is seriously absent amongst the outcry from those who seem to be apologists for acts of violence.

I agree Roger that the respective firepower of the protagonaists is not the issue here. I was just expressing surprise at Israeli firepower. Where I depart from your analysis is that it is Hamas et al who are to be judged as the sole provocateurs. If any country decides to take over land that doesn't belong to them do they expect those who are dispossessed to do nothing about it? Sad to say that terrorism, which can never been condoned, is often borne of injustice. Righting the historical wrongs by a proper negotiated settlement is always to be preferred of course. We managed it in Northern Ireland because we understood that some of the grievances that led to the troubles had to be resolved to secure peace. That Trump should show such insensitivity and ignorance over the issues relating to Jerusalem is a shocking indictment on his competence.

My intent was to show that in more modern times it is Hamas, PLO, Hezbollah, Syria etc that has done the greater amount of militaristic activity causing Israel to retaliate.  I am aware Israel, over the years has acted first but one has to admit that the 'aggressor' activity has on the greatest number of occasions been the Arab nations and 'terrorist' organisations.

Given that Israel has a much bigger stick to wield, than Hamas or other factions (Black September...remember them?) surely it is to their credit that they have shown such restraint?  Something that seems to be lost amongst the Arabist apologists.

But isn't Israel continuing to expand and build on settlements that they have no right to do under international law ? That's what the Amnesty International report that BG gave a link to has indicated. And as far as civilian deaths are concerned I believe it is the Palestinians who have suffered the largest number of casualties. Whether it is one life lost or hundreds, I would expect the leader of the "Free World" to understand that sometimes words can cause death to innocents on both sides of the divide.

[RogerC]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 3:15 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-10 3:05 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 2:51 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-10 2:25 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 8:54 AMExcellent post BG. The "firepower" stats are staggering.

Sorry Veronica but who gives a monkeys about who has what firepower.  It is 'always' Hamas or Hezbollah or some other Arab organisation that provokes Israel into retaliation something that is seriously absent amongst the outcry from those who seem to be apologists for acts of violence.

I agree Roger that the respective firepower of the protagonaists is not the issue here. I was just expressing surprise at Israeli firepower. Where I depart from your analysis is that it is Hamas et al who are to be judged as the sole provocateurs. If any country decides to take over land that doesn't belong to them do they expect those who are dispossessed to do nothing about it? Sad to say that terrorism, which can never been condoned, is often borne of injustice. Righting the historical wrongs by a proper negotiated settlement is always to be preferred of course. We managed it in Northern Ireland because we understood that some of the grievances that led to the troubles had to be resolved to secure peace. That Trump should show such insensitivity and ignorance over the issues relating to Jerusalem is a shocking indictment on his competence.

My intent was to show that in more modern times it is Hamas, PLO, Hezbollah, Syria etc that has done the greater amount of militaristic activity causing Israel to retaliate.  I am aware Israel, over the years has acted first but one has to admit that the 'aggressor' activity has on the greatest number of occasions been the Arab nations and 'terrorist' organisations.

Given that Israel has a much bigger stick to wield, than Hamas or other factions (Black September...remember them?) surely it is to their credit that they have shown such restraint?  Something that seems to be lost amongst the Arabist apologists.

But isn't Israel continuing to expand and build on settlements that they have no right to do under international law ? That's what the Amnesty International report that BG gave a link to has indicated. And as far as civilian deaths are concerned I believe it is the Palestinians who have suffered the largest number of causalities. Whether it is one life lost or hundreds, I would expect the leader of the "Free World" to understand that sometimes words can cause death to innocents on both sides of the divide.

Regarding expansion I understand, from reading a book about the founding of modern Israel and the beginnings and development of Israeli security services, that there is historically much more to the areas of expansion than meets the eye.  It is quite complex and includes Suez, Egypt invasion of Israel, 6 day war, Yom Kippur to name but a few influences.

As for who has suffered the most casualties surely it is Hamas/Islamic Jihad and other organisations who should bear the responsibility for 'all' casualties arising from their unprovoked attacks and those resulting from Israel's retaliation? 

As for the 'Leader of the Free World' is he supposed to sit back and say 'Oh we must not do this, that or the other' because the Arab terrorist organisations/countries won't like it and will use it as an 'excuse' to lob rockets/missiles....start a war....despatch their terrorists around the globe to kill and maim innocent people?

I make no apologies for standing and saying yes negotiation is the way to making a settlement in most any situation.  However there is no justification for launching rockets etc at innocent people because someone makes a political announcement.  There is too much Israel bashing going on when it is the Arabs who instigate the act of delivering death and destruction because of someone's 'words'.  It is they who should be roundly condemned around the globe.

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:17 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 8:59 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-09 5:19 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 2:56 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 2:36 PM

 

Not recognised by the UN as the capital and a move roundly condemned by our government and many others. According to a comment in The Times today the Israeli government had not made this issue a priority in any peace process. I accept the peace process is stalled but where was the reason to engage reverse?

 

So when did the UN get to decide where a sovereign country has its capital? :-| ........

If I recall, it was the UN that decided where the whole of Israel could go, so why not its capital?

 

So its not a sovereign nation then? ;-) ........

 

......and in theory the UN could move our capital to? :-| .......

 

I vote for Skeggy to be the UK's new capital city B-) .........

 

 

Have you read any of the materials on line in BGs links Dave or others that describe what is at the root of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel over Jerusalem?

The links aren't to his favourite comic so won't appeal.

 

 

RogerC - 2017-12-10 2:20 PM

 

You really do come out with some unbelievable garbage at times.

 

This recognition was/is not of Trumps making. As has been said many times the resolution was passed over twenty years ago and this decision to implement that resolution now is one made by the Administration not just by one man.

Do keep up Roger. I already posted about that at 8.43pm last night though with relevant detail you prefer to ignore. You also posted below the same post!

[Violet1956]

I think you have adopted a rather partisan view of the term "unprovoked" here Roger.

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2017-12-10 2:25 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 8:54 AMExcellent post BG. The "firepower" stats are staggering.

Sorry Veronica but who gives a monkeys about who has what firepower. It is 'always' Hamas or Hezbollah or some other Arab organisation that provokes Israel into retaliation something that is seriously absent amongst the outcry from those who seem to be apologists for acts of violence.

RogerC - 2017-12-10 2:38 PM

 

Interesting injection of irrelevance. Who has the biggest stick really doesn't matter. So Israel has nukes...

That's funny. US has by far the 'biggest stick' regards firepower........yet fear and threaten a tiny little country like DPRK so it obviously does seem to matter, at least where the US is concerned.

 

I think you'd see it differently if facing a few F-15's and F-16's coming at you full bore and your only 'defence' is a few catapults, bricks, and old rockets.

 

Sorry Roger but imo neither side is without blame and there is far too much to ignore in that second link and you are viewing the situation with total one sided bias where you see Israel as the poor little guy being beaten and oppressed by a dominant Palestine.

[RogerC]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 3:49 PMI think you have adopted a rather partisan view of the term "unprovoked" here Roger.

OK that appears to me to be another 'apologist' approach to the fact that Hamas has chosen to launch rockets on innocents because of the actions of the USA.  So I maintain that there is no provocation that can be seen as justification for launching a 'first strike' as Hamas has done onto innocent people going about their daily lives.

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2017-12-10 4:16 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-10 2:25 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 8:54 AMExcellent post BG. The "firepower" stats are staggering.

Sorry Veronica but who gives a monkeys about who has what firepower. It is 'always' Hamas or Hezbollah or some other Arab organisation that provokes Israel into retaliation something that is seriously absent amongst the outcry from those who seem to be apologists for acts of violence.

RogerC - 2017-12-10 2:38 PMInteresting injection of irrelevance. Who has the biggest stick really doesn't matter. So Israel has nukes...

That's funny. US has by far the 'biggest stick' regards firepower........yet fear and threaten a tiny little country like DPRK so it obviously does seem to matter, at least where the US is concerned. I think you'd see it differently if facing a few F-15's and F-16's coming at you full bore and your only 'defence' is a few catapults, bricks, and old rockets.Sorry Roger but imo neither side is without blame and there is far too much to ignore in that second link and you are viewing the situation with total one sided bias where you see Israel as the poor little guy being beaten and oppressed by a dominant Palestine.

Actually I was thinking I had more or less said since it's modern times inception Israel has borne the brunt of numerous unprovoked attacks/invasions by Arab countries and organisations. 

If it comes across as Israel is innocent in all this then clearly I'm not making myself clear.  Both sides are at fault here 'but' it is the Arab world, Israel's neighbours (Arabs) that are mostly to be held to account for initiating the first strike.  

As far as 'partisan' views are concerned I feel it is more the case of the many on here and in the public at large that fails to recognise the Arab world is spawning more than it's fair share of those who kill and maim and destroy far to readily.  Taken on a nation level I honestly believe Israel has acted with tremendous restraint.

As for F15/16 coming at me.  I wouldn't be stupid enough to lob a few 'dumb' rockets into the midst of a country that has such weaponry.  That's like poking a sleeping lion with a stick........just asking for trouble.

As for DPRK I hardly think anything relative to that country (it's despotic, insane leadership) is relevant in any discussion on rational actions or even small to middling irrational issues.  I hardly think anything that country does is funny.  If you can find anything funny regarding the militaristic activity of that (small little....ah shame the big US is bullying them...boohoo)  country you must have a really warped sense of humour.  Or is the DPRK on your list of 'being defensive and offended on behalf of seeing as you feel the US is bullying it?  As for being concerned about that 'tiny little country'  doesn't what it is doing give you cause for concern? 

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 10:57 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:33 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 9:27 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:17 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 8:59 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-09 5:19 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 2:56 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 2:36 PM

 

Not recognised by the UN as the capital and a move roundly condemned by our government and many others. According to a comment in The Times today the Israeli government had not made this issue a priority in any peace process. I accept the peace process is stalled but where was the reason to engage reverse?

 

So when did the UN get to decide where a sovereign country has its capital? :-| ........

If I recall, it was the UN that decided where the whole of Israel could go, so why not its capital?

 

So its not a sovereign nation then? ;-) ........

 

......and in theory the UN could move our capital to? :-| .......

 

I vote for Skeggy to be the UK's new capital city B-) .........

 

 

Have you read any of the materials on line in BGs links Dave or others that describe what is at the root of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel over Jerusalem?

 

I know what the problem is ;-) ........Its called religion *-) .......

 

No it isn't

 

Oh yes it is >:-) .......

 

You're just saying that Dave. :-D Mostly because you haven't done your homework.

[Brian Kirby]

Interesting, isn't it? This one issue lies at the heart of most of the middle eastern turmoil. Sadly, it is the UK which, in turn, lies at the root of the issue. No side has clean hands but, IMO, Israel plays a duplicitous game. It pricks the Palestinians continually, and in doing so provokes them to retaliate. When they do, Israel responds disproportionately, as the Palestinians know they will. Both sides then justify their actions on the basis the "he started it, Sir", both claiming they were provoked, which, of course, they were.

 

The sad, hard, truth, is that but for the Balfour declaration, it is probable that none of these tit-for-tat provocations, which began almost exactly 100 years ago, would ever have started. And, had the Ottoman Turks not decided to support Kaiser Wilhelm II in the first world war, there would have been no Balfour declaration. Had Hitler (and a number of others) not persecuted and massacred the Jews during the second world war, there would have been little impetus to the Israeli Zionists to declare a Jewish state. Had the fledgling United Nations been a little less ashamed (justifiably) at what Hitler had done, and a little more sympathetic to the pleas of the Palestinians when the Israeli Zionists made their land grab, and acted then, it is possible there might have been a different outcome. If. If. If.

 

But the Palestinians were basically sold down the river to assuage European consciences at what Europeans had done. That is their grevance. That is the root of the present problem. It is unjust, but finding justice for both peoples has eluded everyone who has, so far, tried.

 

It is a now a 100 year old vendetta, with land appropriated, and blood shed, over time. One day, perhaps, it may be settled. But, to me, it is extremely difficult to see when, or how, that may be achieved. However that may be, it seems Trump's intervention has done nothing, and was intended to do nothing, to help resolve it, and has probably exacerbated it. Not my definition of a clever move.

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2017-12-10 6:30 PM

 

Actually I was thinking I had more or less said since it's modern times inception Israel has borne the brunt of numerous unprovoked attacks/invasions by Arab countries and organisations.

 

If it comes across as Israel is innocent in all this then clearly I'm not making myself clear. Both sides are at fault here 'but' it is the Arab world, Israel's neighbours (Arabs) that are mostly to be held to account for initiating the first strike.

So you support Israel openly and flagrantly violating international law which it's done for many many years? Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land do not just amount to war crimes under international law, they violate fundamental principles of international law eg Geneva convention. From what you've posted so far you appear to be in support of this which surprises me. So when your neighbour decides he hasn't enough land and your house is in the way, you have no problem when he bulldozes it to the ground then steals your land from you for himself?

 

I don't agree that it is 'mostly' the Palestinians fault for this Roger.

 

This is a lengthy but worthwhile read on Israels land grab;

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n07/henry-siegman/grab-more-hills-expand-the-territory

 

Also a good Q&A site; https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-10 7:21 PMInteresting, isn't it? This one issue lies at the heart of most of the middle eastern turmoil. Sadly, it is the UK which, in turn, lies at the root of the issue. 1. No side has clean hands but, IMO, Israel plays a duplicitous game. It pricks the Palestinians continually, and in doing so provokes them to retaliate. When they do, Israel responds disproportionately, as the Palestinians know they will. Both sides then justify their actions on the basis the "he started it, Sir", both claiming they were provoked, which, of course, they were. 2.  The sad, hard, truth, is that but for the Balfour declaration, it is probable that none of these tit-for-tat provocations, which began almost exactly 100 years ago, would ever have started. And, had the Ottoman Turks not decided to support Kaiser Wilhelm II in the first world war, there would have been no Balfour declaration. Had Hitler (and a number of others) not persecuted and massacred the Jews during the second world war, there would have been little impetus to the Israeli Zionists to declare a Jewish state. Had the fledgling United Nations been a little less ashamed (justifiably) at what Hitler had done, and a little more sympathetic to the pleas of the Palestinians when the Israeli Zionists made their land grab, and acted then, it is possible there might have been a different outcome. If. If. If. But the Palestinians were basically sold down the river to assuage European consciences at what Europeans had done. That is their grevance. That is the root of the present problem. It is unjust, but finding justice for both peoples has eluded everyone who has, so far, tried. It is a now a 100 year old vendetta, with land appropriated, and blood shed, over time. One day, perhaps, it may be settled. But, to me, it is extremely difficult to see when, or how, that may be achieved. However that may be, it seems Trump's intervention has done nothing, and was intended to do nothing, to help resolve it, and has probably exacerbated it. Not my definition of a clever move.

Point 1 above.....very true.

Point 2.....Very true.  History has an amazing ability to permit us to see the error of the ways of those who have gone before.  However what it doesn't do, because of a great number of variables (advances in communication, technology, weaponry, even public attitudes towards other peoples and nations etc etc), is to allow us to see their mindset and the then acceptable processes whereby things we live with today, and sometimes question, were readily acceptable all those decades ago.

What we have is a situation in the Middle East whereby one nation (irrespective of tit for tat claims), is in the midst of a coming together of Arab nations (producers of 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists', or worse still 'Islamist fanatics' depending on your point preference of terminology) that basically would be quite happy if Ahmedinajad and latterly this evil minded individual....Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who said:

QUOTE ........ that the “barbaric” Jewish state “has no cure but to be annihilated.”UNQUOTE

Now I have yet to learn of or hear of Israel calling for the destruction or annihilation of any Arab nation despite the fact that it 'apparently' has the capability to do so.

I honestly feel that at the core of this whole matter is the Arab mindset, and this includes a number of ethnic groups in the Middle East/Central Asia, whereby blood feuds go back over not just decades but centuries.  I include the acts of terrorism and war making perpetrated by Islamists and other sect fanatics in this because it is clear that they are never going to be deterred from their evil ways.   It is essentially a cultural matter which I fear will never be resolved.

Lastly all this outcry regarding the Trump announcement is inversely proportional to the deafening silence coming from 'any' quarter regarding Hamas and the majority of the Arab world calling for, and delivering, death and destruction.  Something somewhere is seriously wrong with a world whereby an announcement, words, garners more reaction of outrage than the indiscriminate launching of rockets onto, and killing, innocent people.  That in itself is indefensible.

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2017-12-10 8:27 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-10 6:30 PMActually I was thinking I had more or less said since it's modern times inception Israel has borne the brunt of numerous unprovoked attacks/invasions by Arab countries and organisations. If it comes across as Israel is innocent in all this then clearly I'm not making myself clear. Both sides are at fault here 'but' it is the Arab world, Israel's neighbours (Arabs) that are mostly to be held to account for initiating the first strike.

So you support Israel openly and flagrantly violating international law which it's done for many many years? Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land do not just amount to war crimes under international law, they violate fundamental principles of international law eg Geneva convention. From what you've posted so far you appear to be in support of this which surprises me. So when your neighbour decides he hasn't enough land and your house is in the way, you have no problem when he bulldozes it to the ground then steals your land from you for himself? I don't agree that it is 'mostly' the Palestinians fault for this Roger.This is a lengthy but worthwhile read on Israels land grab;https://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n07/henry-siegman/grab-more-hills-expand-the-territoryAlso a good Q&A site; https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine

Have you joined John on whatever planet he lives on?

I said nothing about supporting Israel in it's breaches of international law so there is nothing there for me to answer.

You might like to look at the history a bit closer and see what lands went where after the Six Day War, started by Egypt building up massed forces on it's border with Israel.   The West Bank and Gaza might still be in Palestinian hands had it not been for Egypt and subsequently Jordan and Syria having ideas of conquering Israel.

As Brian said, and I agreed with, there is blame on both sides but it is the Arab world that clamours for the destruction of Israel, lobs rockets at it's people and generally behaves in so many ways I find indefensible much more than Israel ever does yet so many always seem to side with the Arabs.

[Guest pelmetman]

pepe63 - 2017-12-10 3:11 PM

 

Sorry for trawling out a tired cliché but wasn't it Peter Ustinov who said.- "Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.” .......?......

 

If the likes of Hamas etc (or the PLO of old) were on "our side" they'd probably be seen as freedom fighters..

 

..if someone was forcibly claiming, and building on, "our" land , what would you want "us" to do..?

 

Ooooh how very middle class and suburbanite :D ...........

 

I was pro Palestine once ;-) .......then I woke up in reality >:-) .......

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-10 6:42 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 10:57 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:33 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 9:27 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:17 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-10 8:59 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-09 5:19 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-12-07 2:56 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 2:36 PM

 

Not recognised by the UN as the capital and a move roundly condemned by our government and many others. According to a comment in The Times today the Israeli government had not made this issue a priority in any peace process. I accept the peace process is stalled but where was the reason to engage reverse?

 

So when did the UN get to decide where a sovereign country has its capital? :-| ........

If I recall, it was the UN that decided where the whole of Israel could go, so why not its capital?

 

So its not a sovereign nation then? ;-) ........

 

......and in theory the UN could move our capital to? :-| .......

 

I vote for Skeggy to be the UK's new capital city B-) .........

 

 

Have you read any of the materials on line in BGs links Dave or others that describe what is at the root of the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel over Jerusalem?

 

I know what the problem is ;-) ........Its called religion *-) .......

 

No it isn't

 

Oh yes it is >:-) .......

 

You're just saying that Dave. :-D Mostly because you haven't done your homework.

 

Oh yes I have :-| ........Which is why I know British soldiers died trying to ensure Palestinians had a homeland :-| .........

 

Not that it improved Feck all *-) .......

 

Lets face it we've been sticking out snouts in the middle east for millennia....... has it made a blind bit of difference?.......Has it b*****ks......we've just made it worse >:-( .......

 

You halo polishers will be the downfall of mankind (lol) (lol) (lol) ........

 

 

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2017-12-10 8:57 PM

 

Have you joined John on whatever planet he lives on?

I said nothing about supporting Israel in it's breaches of international law so there is nothing there for me to answer.

Neither have i read you condemning Israels illegal land grab and violation of international laws with it's settlements etc, hence why i can only conclude you must be in support of that.

 

You might like to look at the history a bit closer and see what lands went where after the Six Day War, started by Egypt building up massed forces on it's border with Israel. The West Bank and Gaza might still be in Palestinian hands had it not been for Egypt and subsequently Jordan and Syria having ideas of conquering Israel.

As Brian said, and I agreed with, there is blame on both sides but it is the Arab world that clamours for the destruction of Israel, lobs rockets at it's people and generally behaves in so many ways I find indefensible much more than Israel ever does yet so many always seem to side with the Arabs.

I've not read anything in your posts other than continual condemnation of Palestinians Roger with very grudging reluctance to admit the part which Israel has indulged, usually followed by a "but"...almost as though you are anxious to play down Israels wrongdoings.

 

Look back on your postings and you will see what i mean........then again, perhaps you won't.

 

"those terrorist barstewards Hamas"....."Arab world running off at the mouth"..."instigating violence and aggression and lobbing rockets"....."Nice people aren't they....so peace loving"...."always Hamas or Hezbollah or some other Arab organisation that provokes Israel"...."look at the sources where the 'kill kill kill' death and destruction calls are coming from"....etc

 

Loaded remarks like that is hardly conducive to a balanced viewpoint is it?

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2017-12-10 10:18 PM

 

Loaded remarks like that is hardly conducive to a balanced viewpoint is it?

 

Prolly not on Friday night down at your local mosque Bullet :D .......

 

 

[malc d]

Bulletguy - 2017-12-10 10:18 PM

 

 

Loaded remarks like that is hardly conducive to a balanced viewpoint is it?

 

 

 

 

This is the Chatterbox section of the Forum.

 

Balanced viewpoints are very rare down here.

 

;-)