[News] Middle East conflict

[Krafty]

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

Sorry, what? I'm confused.
When did neutral mean to support the oppressor, surely it means to not support either side in the conflict?
You may see a mouse and an elephant, a "good" and an "evil", but some don't and think that there are just two elephants or mouses.

 

[clapham_gull]

Twitter Boy? Moron? Why resort to childish behaviour?

Simply (and quite obviously) you accused me of "neutrality" (as in "not caring") by very lazily quoting someone else's words.

It's as meaningless as writing "Charity begins at home.". There are severe issues both sides as you pointed out in your post. Hypocrisy seemingly being your thing.

I refuse to take a side, because taking a side in this conflict leads to absolutely nowhere because it is so f***ed up historically.

Using words like "apartheid" completely sucks the oxygen out of the room to find to a solution as tt clearly suggests Israel is a colonial power that shouldn't have been there is the first place.

You may well agree, but such thinking will never see peace in the region.

 

[Zeberdi]

I don't feel as optimistic as you about this. Is there something you have read that shows this as a possibility?

No - Just my own background in Law and belief that a ‘rights-based’ approach in jurisprudence has a legitimate place in conflict resolution - after you posted, I did a google and came across this paper coincidentally which proposes much the same idea albeit with US as the arbiter of any such process;

https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/04/29/approaching-peace-centering-rights-in-israel-palestine-conflict-resolution-pub-84397

 

[BadFish]

Sorry, what? I'm confused.
When did neutral mean to support the oppressor, surely it means to not support either side in the conflict?
You may see a mouse and an elephant, a "good" and an "evil", but some don't and think that there are just two elephants.

Surely there are more than two entities in this. The Palestinians can not be seen as an elephant surely?

I am not sure this analogy is sufficient for the situation.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

No

 

[BadFish]

Simply (and quite obviously) you accused me of "neutrality" (as in "not caring") by very lazily quoting someone else's words.

It's as meaningless as writing "Charity begins at home.". There are severe issues both sides as you pointed out in your post. Hypocrisy seemingly being your thing.

I refuse to take a side, because taking a side in this conflict leads to absolutely nowhere because it is so f***ed up historically.

Using words like "apartheid" completely sucks the oxygen out of the room to find to a solution as tt clearly suggests Israel is a colonial power that shouldn't have been there is the first place.

You may well agree, but such thinking will never see peace in the region.

This surely refers to Israel moving beyond the agreed borders?

 

[Zeberdi]

.
Using words like "apartheid" completely sucks the oxygen out of the room to find to a solution as tt clearly suggests Israel is a colonial power that shouldn't have been there is the first place.

I think you misunderstand the use of the word ‘apartheid’ in the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict

Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory is ‘apartheid’: UN rights expert

Calling on the international community to accept and adopt the recent findings in his report, an independent human rights expert said on Friday that “apartheid is being practiced by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory”.

news.un.org

 

[Krafty]

Surely there are more than two entities in this. The Palestinians can not be seen as an elephant surely?

I am not sure this analogy is sufficient for the situation.

I think that there are a few individuals who feel this way, but I slightly agree with that point.
I just don't understand how neutrality equates to siding with the oppressor, isn't the definition of 'neutral' to not support either side in the conflict?
There seems to be some who think this way and don't side with a particular group yet this is classified, according to @knekkebrød, as siding with the oppressor (presumably referring to Israel) - why?

EDIT: I am interesting in learning further about the conflict, that is why I'm commenting on the thread, so seeing all this different opinions about what has occurred fascinates me although I have to read with an open mind.

 

[knekkebrød]

Simply (and quite obviously) you accused me of "neutrality" (as in "not caring") by very lazily quoting someone else's words.

It's as meaningless as writing "Charity begins at home.". There are severe issues both sides as you pointed out in your post. Hypocrisy seemingly being your thing.

I refuse to take a side, because taking a side in this conflict leads to absolutely nowhere because it is so f***ed up historically.

Using words like "apartheid" completely sucks the oxygen out of the room to find to a solution as tt clearly suggests Israel is a colonial power that shouldn't have been there is the first place.

You may well agree, but such thinking will never see peace in the region.

Desmond Tutu used these words to attack those who declared neutral to the the Apartheid South Africa. He has since used the word Apartheid about Israel, so has Amnesty International, and even Jimmy Carter(with reservations), to name some.

Look at the reality of the people living there.
Who has got the freedom? Who has not?
Who is denying whom freedom?

 

[clapham_gull]

I think you misunderstand the use of the word ‘apartheid’ in the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict

https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/04/29/approaching-peace-centering-rights-in-israel-palestine-conflict-resolution-pub-84397

I really don't.

I understand this is an incredibly f***ed up historical problem. Antisemitism predates Nazi Germany.

I don't need to repeat Hitler's view, but then the West have fully supported the creation and support of a state bang in the middle of a region with a very different world view. Seemingly to solve their own historical "issues" by brushing them under the carpet.

Europe nations created this problem and should be far more proactive trying to resolve it.

That sort of view gets attack as "neutral", but I'm that stage of my life not to care about the views of those who think taking a side leads to resolution.

Unfortunately they are imprisoned in their modern binary vacuum.

 

[BadFish]

I think that there are a few individuals who feel this way, but I slightly agree with that point.
I just don't understand how neutrality equates to siding with the oppressor, isn't the definition of 'neutral' to not support either side in the conflict?
There seems to be some who think this way and don't side with a particular group yet this is classified, according to @knekkebrød, as siding with the oppressor (presumably referring to Israel) - why?

Not really my argument and I think that this conflict is too complex to see just oppressor and oppressed. Fwiw I think that this is the problem in the discussion of this issue. Some see Israel as the oppressor of the Palestinian people whereas other see them as historically oppressed and currently oppressed by the Islamic nations around them.

But in simpler conflicts I guess the thinking is that staying neutral benefits the oppressor more than the oppressed.

 

[Zeberdi]

I really don't.

I understand this is an incredibly f***ed up historical problem. Antisemitism predates Nazi Germany.

You said ‘apartheid’ ‘clearly suggests Israel is a colonial power that shouldn’t be there’

It doesn’t - you are conflating ‘apartheid’ with ‘colonialism’ as occurred in South Africa? - two separate things that can co-exist but are not necessarily dependent on each other to exist. I’m not entirely sure what ‘antisemitism’ has to do with Israel being accused of apartheid policies towards Palestinians in the occupied territories tbh, are you suggesting that the Hamas attacks on Israel are anti-semetic in nature? …. they are not, they are an armed resistance (or if you prefer, terrorist attacks) against what is seen as an oppressive (illegal) occupation of Palestinian territory

“Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights. Apartheid is a crime against humanity punishable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. “

apartheid

www.law.cornell.edu

But you are definitely right about one thing - it’s an incredibly f***ed up historical problem for sure





“

 

[Whitechapel]

I do not think at all .

EFA.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

What will the figures be for Gaza/Palestinians once the Israeli reaction is completed? I would suggest they will be comparatively far higher.

Oh well, that’s ok then. f*** whataboutery.

 

[London Irish]

Feel devastated for the Palestinians - many thousands of them will now be slaughtered by the military might of their local superpower, and those that live will be immiserated even more to lead blighted lives in the huge prison camps the size of regions. But hey let's wave our little Ukraine flags and pretend we are on the side of victimised nations

 

[pastafarian]

Feel devastated for the Palestinians - many thousands of them will now be slaughtered by the military might of their local superpower, and those that live will be immiserated even more to lead blighted lives in the huge prison camps the size of regions. But hey let's wave our little Ukraine flags and pretend we are on the side of victimised nations

f*** Hamas
#TeamIsrael

ps dont give a toss what bollocks you come back with

 

[Bakero]

Oh well, that’s ok then. f*** whataboutery.

That's not whataboutery. It's the same conflict. @Steve Foster provided numbers to show what a comparable number of casualties would look like in the US.

If we do those sums for the Palestinians, it would be the equivalent of about 15000 US deaths in one day.

 

[Bakero]

One one side not both

When an Israeli sniper decided to put multiple bullets in a lone teenage girl last December, was that not murder? https://archive.ph/fczyv

 

[nicko31]

If you kick a dog every day, if you beat a dog everyday, don't be surprised one day you'll get bitten.

 

[heathgate]

Neither side comes out smelling of roses. Were the UN right to establish a homeland for jews after World War II? - yes, too right they were. Were the displaced arabs justified in feeling angry? - yes.
Problem was, rather than try and mend fences and settle their differences, maybe supporting an independent Palestinian state with full UN membership, the Israelis from the start set out to be bad neighbours, forever invading arab lands and stealing more territory to build settlements. No idea where we can go from here now, unfortunately. Only certainty is that people will be killed.
Of course, the US could have stopped this years ago, by threatening to withdraw all support for Israel unless they handed the settlements back and stuck to their own borders, as given to them by the UN, and supported a Palestine independent homeland, but the Zionist lobby in the US was too strong and too blinkered to allow that to happen.
RIP the many people about to die.

So tell me, what prompted those initial "land grabs" you refer too,... what was the trigger for the 'capture' of the Golan Heights, Gaza, West Bank?