The West is totally biased about Israel.

AFAIK in Greece sympathy, even at a government level, is much more in favour of the Palestinians, but then again they tend to be 'anti whatever' the USA is involved with. I think Bey is talking about the government level.

The french came out with some stronger language however  our own Aussie gov simply repeated the white house line.

Why are most of the posters on here so critcal of Israel?

The Jewish state by committing to operations, such as what is now occurring in Gaza it's only defending it's self from aggressive actions undertaken by Islamist organizations such as Hamas.

Israel and the West has nothing to be guilty of in my opinion of what operations are now occurring.

However I must say that I am dismayed at the civilian casualties occurring, none the less though I think little can be done to avoid that.


Edited by Kevin - 29-Dec-2008 at 16:29

Hi Kevin

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Parnell   First of all, Palestinians don't need you permission not that of the world to defend themselves. Israel occupied the west Bank and Gaza strip for 60+ years. Resistence only started in the late 60s and early 70s. Before that, before 67, Israel averaged some 100 Palestinians a month and the world stood watching. Sharon when he was the military commander of Gaza in the 70s after the 73 war killed over 700 Palestinians in less than 6 months and all of them were civilians. The world said nothing. In the 80s during the 1st Intifada, Israeli soldiers were filmed and shown on world television massacring peaceful demonstrators, and the world said nothing. Only after suicide bombers and military action did Israel settle. Unfortunate as it may it shows the world cares not about the Palestinians so Bey is right.     Al-Jassas

 

Originally posted by Kevin However Hamas is an organization that can not be trusted even though they are more slightly willing to negotiate with Israel. Keep in mind they have made power plays against the more moderate Abbas which resulted in a Palestinian Civil War, not to mention Hama's harsh language and erratic political behavior.

That's essentially the core of the problem right there. It's not about how the Palestinians resist Israeli oppression or whether they are violent or nonviolent (we never minded Mandela's ANC, did we?), it's about the fact they don't seem to be able to form a credible political alternative. Without that, a solution is hard to imagine. It would be irresponsible to everyone in the region - the Palestinians included - to let Hamas take the reins of state power. We certainly can't just hope that they'll become more legitimate once they get there, that's how we got Mugabe (among others!)

In that sense, things really are in the hands of the Palestinians, though I don't believe it has anything to do with whether they resist violently or not - it has to do with producing quality leadership. They have no Nelson Mandela, no Michael Collins.

As far as Israel, yes they seem to behave in a heavy handed fashion and seem disinterested in a solution, but on the other hand, we do pay perhaps too much attention to this conflict. As conflicts go, it's relatively minor, both sides are quite the media whores: a few hundred killed in Israel gets more airtime and print space than an entire war with millions dead in Africa. And I think a big part of the problem lies in the importance we attach to the conflict: that's what fuels the arms being sent to Israel, for instance. Calming the global hysteria over this conflict is crucial, because the alarmism and rhetoric involved only serves to escalate things on the ground.

Edited by edgewaters - 29-Dec-2008 at 17:20

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Parnell   First of all, Palestinians don't need you permission not that of the world to defend themselves. Israel occupied the west Bank and Gaza strip for 60+ years. Resistence only started in the late 60s and early 70s. Before that, before 67, Israel averaged some 100 Palestinians a month and the world stood watching. Sharon when he was the military commander of Gaza in the 70s after the 73 war killed over 700 Palestinians in less than 6 months and all of them were civilians. The world said nothing. In the 80s during the 1st Intifada, Israeli soldiers were filmed and shown on world television massacring peaceful demonstrators, and the world said nothing. Only after suicide bombers and military action did Israel settle. Unfortunate as it may it shows the world cares not about the Palestinians so Bey is right.   Bey is also right about Tibet. I suggest you read about pre-China Tibet and really know how the good hearted similing Buddhist monks ran the country. Those same smiling monks lead the burning of a mosque during the riots early this year killing all who were inside for no reason except they were Hui (muslim Han). Those same smiling monks lead lynching mobs targeting school age girls for no reason other than they are Han. They burned and looted business for no reason other than they were Han. Yet you and the western media will never hear about this or even worse, hear it but decide to do nothing. Nobody condemned the monks for murdering over 100 innocent people in one day but when Chinese riot police deal with those criminals with a velvet glove the west cries foul. Sorry man but Bey was on the point.   Al-Jassas

Hello Al-Jassas,

Believe me, I can understand where you are coming from. As an Arab, you naturally have a sympathy for your kin in Palestine. As a muslim I'm sure you sympathise with fellow Muslims bearing the brunt of oppression. I live along the border with Northern Ireland, and although I am from the generation after violence I've grown up with the tales of the IRA and a certain amount of romanticism associated with the physical force resistance tradition. also, like any 'generation-after' I do have a degree of wooly minded optimism associated with the future and peace in my country but also in the world. I can understand that someone embroiled in the conflict can see no other way out than to shoot someone or indeed to blow themselves up in a suicide attack. Even so, Northern Ireland even at its worst was no Palestine so even were I of that generation I still might not be able to understand completely. And the poverty is Northern Ireland never reached the dizzying depths we have in some places in Palestine today. It all boils one very inequitably broth, and I understand this.

All I am doing is trying to challenge certain assumptions by partisans deeply involved in the conflict for one reason or another, be he an onlooker, an Arab, a Jew or a warrior. I don't pretend to have any substantive answers.

Yes and Washington should have just given up after 4 serious blows and retreats... all within weeks. Point is that there was an ideology there and that people walked from Georgia without shoes or proper equipment yearning for self government. Why do you think that the Palestinians would react any different in a similar situation. Not to mention that the British didn't really oppress us when compared to the Palestinian example. 

I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall reading somewhere -- can't remember where -- that Hamas was the party that refused to renew the cease fire. Is this so? If it is, I don't think Israel can shoulder all of the blame for the situation -- although both parties routinely violate the terms of their agreements. Could someone please elaborate?

Originally posted by Leonidas AFAIK in Greece sympathy, even at a government level, is much more in favour of the Palestinians, but then again they tend to be 'anti whatever' the USA is involved with. I think Bey is talking about the government level. The french came out with some stronger language however  our own Aussie gov simply repeated the white house line.

Greece has sympathy for Palestine before the "any anti-USA" feeling broke out. Just have a look at the Greek newspapers of the early 50s...

So, basically you don't need to be eather muslim nor anti-jew (Greece had a large jewish community before WWII) to critisize Israel.


Edited by Flipper - 29-Dec-2008 at 19:01