|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 29, 2014 11:00:34 GMT
A casual interpretation of the oft repeated BBC news re child deaths in Gaza could lead to the assumption that children are being deliberately targeted. They are not. If child casualties are high it is because the proportion of children is high in Gaza. The highest in the word, in fact.
Jean, one can understand why the Jordanian Palestinians (because "Palestinians" is what they were before they decided to be "Jordanians") don't want any more Gazans. They offered sanctuary in the past and were abused for their pains.
The Arabs apparently don't want any more of their Palestinian co-religionists. They are the ones who should be offering help. Isn't charity one of the five pillars of Islam?
The Palestinian diaspora is already large. A pity it isn't total!
The countries outside the Palestinian territories with significant Palestinian populations are:
Jordan 3,240,000 Israel 1,650,000 Syria 630,000 Chile 500,000 Lebanon 402,582 Saudi Arabia 280,245 Egypt 270,245 United States 255,000 Honduras 250,000 Mexico 120,000 Qatar 100,00 Germany 80,000 Kuwait 80,000 El Salvador 70,000 Brazil 59,000 Iraq 57,000 Yemen 55,000 Canada 50,975 Australia 45,000 Libya 44,000 United Kingdom 20,000 Denmark 19000 Peru 15,000 Colombia 12,000 Pakistan 10,500 Netherlands 9,000 Sweden 7,000 Algeria 4,030
Very few Christian Palestinians remain in Gaza. Very wise. They seem to have more get-up and go.
It is pretty certain that all Gazans have relatives living elsewhere and with citizenship of other lands. They should go and join them. As immigrants they should be quite useful to their new host nations because amongst Arabs they are exceptionally well educated and literate - 97% literacy compared to 50% average amongst other Arbas.
A few months ago I had an enquiry from a chap who was interested in renting one of my basement flatlets. He was very well spoken and personable. He came to view and I asked him where he came from. He said guess. I guessed - Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Iran. All wrong. He was Palestinian. I was surprised! I thought they were all "imprisoned" in Gaza! He had been studying in England since about 1995, now an award-winning PhD, he was a top flight computer/IT expert and wanted to bring over his fiancee from Palestine. As well as being Palestinian, he was also a British citizen, natch! To import his fiancee he needed to provide proof to the UK authorities that he had the means to support her and a home for her - hence his enquiry about my flatlet. Sadly the flatlet was not suitable for a couple so he did not become my tenant.
According to the figures above there are 20,000 Palestinians in the UK, the size of a small town. Who'd have thought it?
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Jul 29, 2014 12:51:06 GMT
I have no sympathy with the Gazans myself. You have made that plain many times After WWI and WWII in Europe almost every national border changed and countless millions of people were left stateless, homeless, impoverished and refugees. This is true. What relationship this bears to the Palestinian situation is less easy to discern. Effectively the Palestinains were made homeless and stateles by an act of war of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. That is not the case in Europe Where are those millions today? Still stagnating in refugee camps? No. Comfortably contributing to the new nations and societies they joined - i.e. productive and happy citizens. Their 'new' nations were generally their patriate nations Why are the Gazans different? What weird tune do they dance to? Subsidised by the UN they think if they wait long enough they will get what they want. WRONG! Well the Zionists waited long enough to get what they wanted and they got it. The Palestinians are not going to go away, and the sooner Israel realises that the sooner will they allow a two-state solution But aside from that, why does this benighted cul de sac of humanity not take itself off to more congenial climes? Perhaps because they , like all humans , cling to what they have and long for their own freedom Oh wait... they have made themselves (in canine terms) "unhomeable" haven't they, thanks to their unreasonable behaviour. You mean they stay where they are because no-one wants them? What evidence do you have that: a. They want to leave b. That they cannot leave because no-one wants them All you closet antisemites weeping and wailing over the poor Palestinians should consider the way in which other peoples have dealt with dispossession and ask yourselves why this situation is different. Cry 'racist' and let loose the dogs of war! You are the one that always complains when accusations of racism are bandied about without giving a second thought when you use exactly that tactic. A little less hypocrisy please
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 29, 2014 15:26:26 GMT
Jordan 3,240,000 Israel 1,650,000 Syria 630,000 Chile 500,000 Lebanon 402,582 Saudi Arabia 280,245 Egypt 270,245 United States 255,000 Honduras 250,000 Mexico 120,000 Qatar 100,00 Germany 80,000 Kuwait 80,000 El Salvador 70,000 Brazil 59,000 Iraq 57,000 Yemen 55,000 Canada 50,975 Australia 45,000 Libya 44,000 United Kingdom 20,000 Denmark 19000 Peru 15,000 Colombia 12,000 Pakistan 10,500 Netherlands 9,000 Sweden 7,000 Algeria 4,030
Looks like a lot of them have gone away already, nay. Only a big enough inducement is required before the rest decamp is my guess. I bet if the UN offered £100,000 per person to leave Gaza and renounce it as their homeland they would be off like a shot to points West - just like my would-be tenant and his fiancee.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 29, 2014 15:48:14 GMT
I use the word anti-Semite since there seems no other aspect of this "dispossession" that can account for the world-wide interest in it.
Who cried for the Armenians, the Poles, the Greeks sent packing from their homes? Certainly not the world and his wife plus the UN demanding re-instatement.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Jul 29, 2014 18:50:55 GMT
Jordan 3,240,000 Israel 1,650,000 Syria 630,000 Chile 500,000 Lebanon 402,582 Saudi Arabia 280,245 Egypt 270,245 United States 255,000 Honduras 250,000 Mexico 120,000 Qatar 100,00 Germany 80,000 Kuwait 80,000 El Salvador 70,000 Brazil 59,000 Iraq 57,000 Yemen 55,000 Canada 50,975 Australia 45,000 Libya 44,000 United Kingdom 20,000 Denmark 19000 Peru 15,000 Colombia 12,000 Pakistan 10,500 Netherlands 9,000 Sweden 7,000 Algeria 4,030 Looks like a lot of them have gone away already, nay. Only a big enough inducement is required before the rest decamp is my guess. I bet if the UN offered £100,000 per person to leave Gaza and renounce it as their homeland they would be off like a shot to points West - just like my would-be tenant and his fiancee. There are still plenty enough remaining to provide acute embarrassment to the 'democratic' State of Israel, with a birth rate that bodes ill for that State. Many Palestinians will also return when they are not prevented from doing so by the Israelis Here are the ones that are still there: Israel 2MWB 2.6MGaza 1.8 MMeanwhile 'Zionists' in Israel: 6MEmbarrassing figures eh? Israel cannot 'absorb ' the WB because in a few decades Zionists would be in the minority and what happens to the Zionist 'democracy' then? The power of the US seems in decline Who will support Israel then? The Chinese? The Russians? The Palestinians are playing the long game, keeping their standard in full view via the appalling Israeli retaliations that recur so frequently Israel must face reality soon and broker a real Peace Agreement They must stop stealing Palestinian lands and treat the Palestinians as if they are Europeans It is the only path for Israel of Israel is to survive
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jul 30, 2014 6:40:10 GMT
I repeat: the issue is: what choice does Israel have? Until you address this question, your outrage and condemnation is merely prejudicial. The whole point of my OP is that there are alternatives to brutal repression, that Isreal’s current actions offer no real solution to the problems of the area When the RAF bombed Pennemunde flat to curtail V2 development - incidentally killing hundreds of civilians, men, women and children in doing so - you would term this "brutal repression"? What is/are the alternatives? The current actions are not intended to be a real solution to the problems of the area. They're intended to be a solution to being daily bombarded and having the threat of having your citizens murdered or kidnapped and held hostage. I strongly suspect the solution will turn out to be real enough - temporarily, at least; and then there'll be a next time, no doubt. I can think of no alternative that's anywhere near as real. What other solutions? I'm afraid the reality is that this "brutality" probably can continue indefinitely. It's hard to imagine developments where Israel will not always be able to respond in this way, and defeat the threat Hamas is posing. Just as hard to imagine the political world changing to the extent where they would not be allowed to so respond, as a legitimate defence that any nation would do in their circumstances. Technically, no. That mandate had expired, as had the organisation that gave it. Again, I find your historical perspective skewed. The "Zionist uprising" wasn't the problem. Yeah, and the rest! And if you think any of that was "easy"... Look. Let's not get embroiled in going round and round chewing over the history of the region again. It's pretty much irrelevant, isn't it? Shall we just deal with the actual problems now, today, in present circumstances? Proffer such a counter-example where the British did not respond to such attacks with military force, if you would. America, India, South Africa, the Sudan, Ireland, Kenya, Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Malaya...I'm at a loss to imagine any of your abundant counter-examples. By Britain or anyone else. And we're not talking ancient history here. But there's a much more serious error I think you're making in this characterisation. Hamas is not demanding "independence and sovereignty." Neither for that matter is Fatah. It's demanding the cessation of Israel. That's not the issue in dispute. If you really believe it is, I suggest - I assert most confidently - that you have misuderstood the "real problems of the region." We and our allies did invade Germany; and did annexe chunks of what once was its territory. Such annexation, if you want to term it as such, continues to today, and no one considers it a problem. There's no "Liberate East Prussia" movement, is there? No terrorist campaign to return Silesia and Bohemia to Germany, is there? As for the "open prison" canard, and the "peace buffer" - Germany surrendered. We beat them. We razed most of their cities to the ground; annihilated their economy; bombed and shot and starved millions of civilians to do so along the way. The same goes for Japan. If either foe had refused to surrender, refused to be occupied, administered, policed for decades until their societies were peaceful and civilised and trustworthy, no further threat, we wouldn't have just said, oh, okay then, I guess you win! Have what you want then - we'll lay down our arms, dismantle our nation State, let you have our country as well as yours, and we'll live under your governance or else go home...where is that, by the way? As we occupied Germany and Japan until peace was secured and no further threat was posed. Entirely, 100%, the result of Hamas' actions and belligerence. Well - not 100%, no. The "international community" AKA the UN has to take its share of responsibility for that necessary state of affairs (melodrmatic rhetoric aside.) When Israel withdrew from Gaza, forcing thousands of Israelis to leave when they did so (some of whom had been farming that land for hundreds of years), the UN guaranteed their security as part of the accord. Where is the UN military force moving into Gaza to prevent Hamas attacking Israel, and where are the punitive economic sanctions, as were promised? You see that as a problem. Israel - and I - see that as part of the solution. War is unpleasant. Tendentious claim, as you know. Where? In Israel? Tendentious. War is umpleasant. Occupation is unpleasant. Fighting a terrorist opponent is unpleasant. Do I need to mention the mass arrest, deportation, imprisonment, and confiscation of their businesses and property, of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII? Or of Germans here? Locking them all up on the Isle of Man? Or do you want to talk about diplock courts and internment? Shall we talk about the record of the British in Northern Ireland? In Malaysia? Kenya? Or of the Americans in Vietnam? Iraq, Afghanistan? Gauntanamo? Or how about the French in Algeria, the Russians in Chechnya, the Pakistanis in Kashmir, the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka? How about Egypt, Libya, Syria? It is not Israel's responsibility to provide for the Palestinians in either Gaze or the West Bank any more. In a war? Compared to whom? There's much to be said about the settlements, and water and land rights. We'd vehemently disagree, given our conflicting historical perspectives. Let's just stick with the issue, now, today, shall we? A people who will not reach a peace. It's a state of war, and hence necessary occupation. Of course those people are "suppressed" in such a circumstance. Have you ever seen photographs of Berlin or Tokyo in 1945? Come on now - you can do better than this. Where are your alternatives to the present course of action, please?
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Jul 30, 2014 8:15:36 GMT
When the RAF bombed Pennemunde flat to curtail V2 development - incidentally killing hundreds of civilians, men, women and children in doing so - you would term this "brutal repression"? No , a necessary action against a well-armed opponent in total war The current actions are not intended to be a real solution to the problems of the area. Indeed they they exacerbate those problems - to Israel's disadvantage They're intended to be a solution to being daily bombarded and having the threat of having your citizens murdered or kidnapped and held hostage. The actions provide no long-term security against such things I strongly suspect the solution will turn out to be real enough - temporarily, at least; What other solutions? Withdrawal of the 'settlements. A real Peace Treaty I'm afraid the reality is that this "brutality" probably can continue indefinitely If that is so then Israel is lost. It is brutalising Israel Look. Let's not get embroiled in going round and round chewing over the history of the region again. It's pretty much irrelevant, isn't it? You have a point but the present is always the result of the past so it is sometimes difficult to avoid historical referrals Shall we just deal with the actual problems now, today, in present circumstances? We can try Proffer such a counter-example where the British did not respond to such attacks with military force, if you would. America, India, South Africa, the Sudan, Ireland, Kenya, Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Malaya...I'm at a loss to imagine any of your abundant counter-examples. By Britain or anyone else. And we're not talking ancient history here.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 30, 2014 9:01:33 GMT
The destruction of Israel is certainly in the constitution of Hamas (although many informed observers say that this would be removed if real peace terms were offered). Is the assurance of many(unnamed) informed observers really sufficient? If Hamas were serious about removing this clause from their constitution, they could themselves specify the conditions under which they would do it. But they never have.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Jul 30, 2014 12:35:29 GMT
Yes. lets
In NI in 45 years, 1879 civilians were killed (many by the IRA or its offshoots) In Israel /Palestine during the 1st intifada LASTING 4 YEARS, 1200 Palestinians were killed by Isreali forces During the 2ND Intifada OF 5 YEARS DURATION 3135 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces During the LAST 2 WEEKS an estimated 800 civilians have been killed by Israeli forces
These figures illustrate bleakly the thuggery of the Isreali use of force and he contempt that they have for the lives of their neighbours
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Jul 30, 2014 12:43:09 GMT
Is the assurance of many(unnamed) informed observers really sufficient? No, not in itself, but if Israel really wants a lasting peace is it better to explore those posibilities rather than kill Palestinains in their thousands? If Hamas were serious about removing this clause from their constitution, they could themselves specify the conditions under which they would do it. But they never have. Hamas is not an innocent party by any means, but does Israel really want peace or would it rather continue killing Palestinians if they resist and stealing their land when they do not?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jul 30, 2014 13:54:26 GMT
After WWI and WWII in Europe almost every national border changed and countless millions of people were left stateless, homeless, impoverished and refugees. Where are those millions today? Still stagnating in refugee camps? No. Comfortably contributing to the new nations and societies they joined - i.e. productive and happy citizens. Why are the Gazans different? That is a very good point, and anyone who has spent time in parts of continental Europe cannot be unaware of it. However I disagree with the marchesa's answer to her own question. It is not so much that the Gazans have made themselves..."unhomeable" as that the countries which were assumed to be ready to give them homes (such as the former Transjordan, later the independent state of Jordan) preferred to keep them in refugee camps rather than take them in. Jordan did offer to take them in. They gave any Palestinian who wanted it citizenship and passports. The reason this largesse no longer applies is that Arafat, from the safety and luxurious comfort of his Tunisian hotel complex, ordered the PLO to overthrow their hosts and take over the country so he could launch another war to annihilate Israel. The Arab League refused to take them in, as a policy of ongoing warfare. But it was the UN who kept them in refugee camps. Instead of helping them settle elsewhere, as happened after WWII - and as happened to the hundreds of thousands who managed to move on under their own steam, to the States, France, Chile etcetera.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jul 30, 2014 14:03:47 GMT
I have no sympathy with the Gazans myself. You have made that plain many times After WWI and WWII in Europe almost every national border changed and countless millions of people were left stateless, homeless, impoverished and refugees. This is true. What relationship this bears to the Palestinian situation is less easy to discern. Effectively the Palestinains were made homeless and stateles by an act of war of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. This is rather more than having a "skewed historical perspective". It's complete and utter falsehood. Israel have offered a two-state solution since 1970. It's not Israel that's not "allowing" it.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jul 30, 2014 14:22:30 GMT
There are still plenty enough remaining to provide acute embarrassment to the 'democratic' State of Israel, with a birth rate that bodes ill for that State. Many Palestinians will also return when they are not prevented from doing so by the Israelis Here are the ones that are still there: Israel 2MWB 2.6MGaza 1.8 MMeanwhile 'Zionists' in Israel: 6MEmbarrassing figures eh? I fail to see anything "embarrassing" about any of that. You're saying Israel should be embarrassed for existing? Or that they should somehow feel responsibility for the foolhardy birthrate of their Arab neighbours? That's right. That's why Israel does not want to "absorb" the WB, or Gaza, and never has done (if they did, they would have done, of course, as every other developed nation has done.) It's also why they cannot countenance the "right to return", of course. Everyone understands this simple logic - including the Palestinians. You're under the comforting delusion that Israel exists courtesy of the US, I gather? Don't complain about the situation continuing then - or don't pretend to blame Israel for it, when you evidently comprehend the real cause perfectly well. The eventual "real" peace agreement will be substantially no different from the ones offered at least half a dozen times already. Well, talking of long games... Dream on. If recent history is anything to go by, Israel will still be healthily surviving and growing long after the last Arab state has messily destroyed itself by dint of its own ideological impossibilities. By the looks of it, sooner or later the Middle East will be one vast UNWRA refugee camp, with a few crazies driving around in their Toyota land cruisers shooting anyone not in a burqa or sitting in the dust chewing qat.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jul 30, 2014 14:47:13 GMT
When the RAF bombed Pennemunde flat to curtail V2 development - incidentally killing hundreds of civilians, men, women and children in doing so - you would term this "brutal repression"? No , a necessary action against a well-armed opponent in total war You think it's a matter of ensuring your opponent is suitably well-armed before you defend yourself? Play up, play up? As for "total war" - read Hamas' charter for a very good definition. You think? You'e not the secret mastermind strategic advisor to Hamas and the PLO, are you, by any chance? This logic puts your and aqua's rhetorical breastbeating wails in something of a different light. You think Hamas are playing some sort of geopolitical chess game; worse, you think they're making good moves. Short term will do then, for the moment. No doubt they'll sort out the long when the time comes - with more and more short term solutions of a similar sort, if need be. No choice, you see? They're not playing chess: they're fighting for their survival. Well, if you believe the settlements have caused this dispute, or in the least perpetuating it, or there's the slightest chance it would cease if the settlements stopped, then you need to learn the rules of chess. Offered many times. All and everything the Palestinians are ever going to get. Prejudice and skewed history again. The US is not lost because it hasn't given all but a corner of swampy Virginia back to the red indians; nor are we because we don't give Canada, Australia, or New Zealand back to its aborigines. Nor are we "brutalised" when we defend ourselves when we, say, remove the Taliban from power by a full scale invasion - women and children casualties notwithstanding. Or bomb the hell out of Baghdad or Belgrade - using only child-friendly munitions, naturally. Yes - but it's not history per se that's the problem. It's your peculiar one-sided interpretation of it. Yes. Let's try and think of alternative solutions to the one Israel is being forced into, shall we? Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jul 30, 2014 15:12:46 GMT
Such "informed observers" are naive, arrogant and dangerous fools. To put it politely. Naive and dangerous and arrgoant in the way Neville Chamberlain was.
Another chess move. When it recognises Israel for what it is, the Jewish State, and when it drops its demands for the right to return (as you acknowledge, Israel's suicide) then it will be something more than the empty propaganda trick that it obviously is.
When the Palestinians come to the table and negotiate a treaty giving them the sovereignty they've been offered many times already, they'll receive all the land that's been "stolen" back again. It'll just be in a more sustainable place, for the viable existence of two countries living side by side. That's Israel's "chess move", you see. The difference is that in their case it's a winning one.
The responsibility, no. The Palestinian leadership, with UN assistance. They could have honoured their treaty agreement and chosen to live in peace; built their new country, with billions of UN and EU and Israeli aid; enjoyed their freedom of movement, and trade; built a thriving civilised riviera to be the educated civilised centre of the Arab world. Instead they chose to spend their money on rockets and tunnels.
|
|