Iranian nuclear deal in 6 months?

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

So in short, the ME would be all harmonious if it weren't for the U.S. Israel, after being attacked by five nations, cannot keep some of the land taken in said war for a buffer? But of course, if you say so.

Can't clap with one hand. IMO, Israel (& the US while we are discussing them together ) should have mounted a charm offensive many years ago, and still it is not too late.

Thanksgiving rather more.

You should know that kindness is interpreted as weakness in that region, and meant to be exploited. There is simply nothing "charming" about it.

[Jimbeaux]

spitsfire said:

Jimbeaux said:

So in short, the ME would be all harmonious if it weren't for the U.S. Israel, after being attacked by five nations, cannot keep some of the land taken in said war for a buffer? But of course, if you say so.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 28th November 16:51

Not so much, no. The land seized over the last 30 years or so isn't really a 'buffer', it's more about building settlements. If I were a Palestinian, I'd be a bit unhappy if I'd been forcibly evicted from my home because of my faith or ethnicity and it had been given to somebody else by virtue of their ethnicity. Add to that the settlers are mainly from the religious fundamentalist camp (the Arabs don't have a monopoly on crazy religious types), and it's fairly easy to see where this one goes.....

The E1 proposals are a good example of this; if the Israelis go ahead with their plans, it will be very difficult to have a viable Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E1_Plan

I would be a bit more pissed if I as a "Palestinian" (what that is is debatable) had been told by those five attacking countries to move away while we kill Israel, then you can come back. Said five countries get their asses handed to them and those folks are stuck.

[spitsfire]

Could we perhaps agree that the Palestinian populace have had the stty end of the stick? Pretty much all of the muslim world is fairly firmly of that view, and it serves as both a rallying cry for extremists and a stick to beat those advocating a more practical solution to the Israel/Palestine land issue.

I see that there's another dispute between the Israelis and the Bedouins bubbling up today - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-251708...

I'd imagine that one will end with a few petrol bombs, a few Bedouins shot/imprisoned, an Israeli Govt press conference condemning 'terrorism', the Bedouins ending up on somebody else's land, and some new housing for the latest generation of european, american or russian jews making aliyah. In the long run, everybody will lose, but in the short term the Bedouins will lose more obviously, and there will be a rash of headlines across the muslim world about muslims being dispossessed to give Israel land.

It's not a new story, and to some extent almost peripheral to the Iranian nuclear question, but it sets the tone and backdrop to any issue that sets parts of the muslim world at odds with the western world.

But back to the main question; The Iranians and P5+1 seem to have a basic framework agreed - should it be considered a win in the greater scheme of things if UN inspectors can get in to do a full appraisal?

[Art0ir]

Jimbeaux said:

I would be a bit more pissed if I as a "Palestinian" (what that is is debatable) had been told by those five attacking countries to move away while we kill Israel, then you can come back. Said five countries get their asses handed to them and those folks are stuck.

Is this the part where you tell us the Jews were there first, so the muzzies can clear off?

I presume you afford the same rights to Native Americans.

[Jimbeaux]

Art0ir said:

Jimbeaux said:

I would be a bit more pissed if I as a "Palestinian" (what that is is debatable) had been told by those five attacking countries to move away while we kill Israel, then you can come back. Said five countries get their asses handed to them and those folks are stuck.

Is this the part where you tell us the Jews were there first, so the muzzies can clear off?

I presume you afford the same rights to Native Americans.

As to our Indians ( BTW, they prefer "Indian" to " Native American"), that is a hand wringing apologist term. I said nothing of who was there first. I did say that they have the right to be there (what do you say?). That right to exist was challenged by five Arab nations armed to the teeth with Soviet gear, and got there asses kicked. Guess what, you attack and lose, there are consequences.

[Art0ir]

Jimbeaux said:

Art0ir said:

Jimbeaux said:

I would be a bit more pissed if I as a "Palestinian" (what that is is debatable) had been told by those five attacking countries to move away while we kill Israel, then you can come back. Said five countries get their asses handed to them and those folks are stuck.

Is this the part where you tell us the Jews were there first, so the muzzies can clear off?

I presume you afford the same rights to Native Americans.

As to our Indians ( BTW, they prefer "Indian" to " Native American"), that is a hand wringing apologist term. I said nothing of who was there first. I did say that they have the right to be there (what do you say?). That right to exist was challenged by five Arab nations armed to the teeth with Soviet gear, and got there asses kicked. Guess what, you attack and lose, there are consequences.

Apologist? That suggests support for something controversial. Interesting choice of language.

I am opposed to the idea of any state founded on religious ideals or principles, but I accept it does exist and the rights of the Israeli people are non-negotiable. Your remark regarding the definition of a Palestinian suggests that you however do not accept the right for a Palestinian state to exist.

The last time I checked 75% of Palestinians were supportive of a two state solution. There is similar support among the Israeli population. However, this support wanes within Palestine every time Israel makes another land grab and expels more Palestinians from their homes using bulldozers.

It is clear that the fundamentalist government of Bibi have no interest in the rights or the existence of the Palestinian people. The announcement that E1 would get the go ahead the day after Palestine was recognised an Observer state in the UN confirms this.

[spitsfire]

We're going waaaaay off topic here, but just to put it to you simply, Jim, there is a difference between having a 'right to be there' and recognising new citizens from other, often 1st world nations, on the basis of ethnicity or religion and then seizing land from other peoples for them to live in.

I've asked a few Israelis (albeit mostly the US/Israeli dual passport holders) and their attitude is mostly along the lines of "Israel is the Jewish State. I'm jewish, ergo I have a right to 'return' to the Promised Land". I've questioned how a person of Lithuanian jewish ancestry born in the US can be middle eastern, and been told it's because they are a jew, and all jews came from the old Israel.

I can't really say I buy that logic, but more to the point; I'm from a modern, multi-cultural society that actively legislates to prevent ethnicity or religious faith being taken into account in just about any form of official decision making. The idea that a nation should be able to actively discriminate on this basis is anathema to me. The fact that some arab states do it doesn't make it any better. Israel oft plays the card of being the only 'liberal, democratic and westernised' country in the ME, and I don't believe that one can make that claim at the same time as institutionally discriminating on the basis of faith, race or ethnicity.

But pack on topic; Israel are going bonkers about the Iranian deal very publicly; the Saudis are probably doing the same thing behind closed doors. For once, there seems to be agreement in most of the international community that a deal with Iran is a good thing. I think it unlikely that the Iranians will deliberately derail the plan/deal because they are so desperate for sanctions relief; remember, Iranians can't even buy medical supplies or spare parts for commercial airliners currently because of the restrictions on their currency and other sanctions. So in terms of 'known knowns' and 'known unknowns', the most likely threat to any form of deal is going to come from the Israelis or the Saudis on the US side. The Israelis have huge influence on US policy and are adept at using it, whereas the Saudis are not quite so good at lobbying, and have bigger problems closer to home at present, so if this does go tits up, my money would be on the Israelis facilitating or provoking the failure.

[V8 Fettler]

spitsfire said:

The British Empire did make a mess of the ME, but nothing on the scale of what the damage caused by US foreign policy, and looking at the state of the ME today,

Edited by spitsfire on Thursday 28th November 11:05

It was the swift and shambolic dismantling of the British Empire following WW2 that contributed to the current situation in the ME, not the period of rule. So we should be blaming the Germans and the US, not the British

[spitsfire]

V8 Fettler said:

spitsfire said:

The British Empire did make a mess of the ME, but nothing on the scale of what the damage caused by US foreign policy, and looking at the state of the ME today,

It was the swift and shambolic dismantling of the British Empire following WW2 that contributed to the current situation in the ME, not the period of rule. So we should be blaming the Germans and the US, not the British

Fair point, but the Germans were spectators by that point: It was the Americans who systematically set about dismantling the British Empire as quickly as possible. So again, this comes back to the USA: The best of intentions, but the worst of results........

[Jimbeaux]

Art0ir said:

Jimbeaux said:

Art0ir said:

Jimbeaux said:

I would be a bit more pissed if I as a "Palestinian" (what that is is debatable) had been told by those five attacking countries to move away while we kill Israel, then you can come back. Said five countries get their asses handed to them and those folks are stuck.

Is this the part where you tell us the Jews were there first, so the muzzies can clear off?

I presume you afford the same rights to Native Americans.

As to our Indians ( BTW, they prefer "Indian" to " Native American"), that is a hand wringing apologist term. I said nothing of who was there first. I did say that they have the right to be there (what do you say?). That right to exist was challenged by five Arab nations armed to the teeth with Soviet gear, and got there asses kicked. Guess what, you attack and lose, there are consequences.

Apologist? That suggests support for something controversial. Interesting choice of language.

I am opposed to the idea of any state founded on religious ideals or principles, but I accept it does exist and the rights of the Israeli people are non-negotiable. Your remark regarding the definition of a Palestinian suggests that you however do not accept the right for a Palestinian state to exist.

The last time I checked 75% of Palestinians were supportive of a two state solution. There is similar support among the Israeli population. However, this support wanes within Palestine every time Israel makes another land grab and expels more Palestinians from their homes using bulldozers.

It is clear that the fundamentalist government of Bibi have no interest in the rights or the existence of the Palestinian people. The announcement that E1 would get the go ahead the day after Palestine was recognised an Observer state in the UN confirms this.

Again, as to our Indians.....they have been given advantages these days that would make a UK benefits council cry with envy. What happened to them was wrong but they are doing quite fine these days, thank you. As to the Palestians having a state, I agree 100%. IIRC, there were a couple of times that it nearly became a reality only to be derailed by Hamas tossing some rockets at Israel. Let's not be silly; Hamas does not want the two state solution to occur, they will have no enemy to focus hate on and will lose power. You seem to actually believe that the Palestinian authorities have some say about such matters. Get real and understand that Hamas runs that show.

[Apache]

Isael making moves to cause some real aggro in Jerusalem now

http://news.sky.com/story/1175709/sacred-shrines-b...

[Jimbeaux]

spitsfire said:

We're going waaaaay off topic here, but just to put it to you simply, Jim, there is a difference between having a 'right to be there' and recognising new citizens from other, often 1st world nations, on the basis of ethnicity or religion and then seizing land from other peoples for them to live in.

I've asked a few Israelis (albeit mostly the US/Israeli dual passport holders) and their attitude is mostly along the lines of "Israel is the Jewish State. I'm jewish, ergo I have a right to 'return' to the Promised Land". I've questioned how a person of Lithuanian jewish ancestry born in the US can be middle eastern, and been told it's because they are a jew, and all jews came from the old Israel.

I can't really say I buy that logic, but more to the point; I'm from a modern, multi-cultural society that actively legislates to prevent ethnicity or religious faith being taken into account in just about any form of official decision making. The idea that a nation should be able to actively discriminate on this basis is anathema to me. The fact that some arab states do it doesn't make it any better. Israel oft plays the card of being the only 'liberal, democratic and westernised' country in the ME, and I don't believe that one can make that claim at the same time as institutionally discriminating on the basis of faith, race or ethnicity.

But pack on topic; Israel are going bonkers about the Iranian deal very publicly; the Saudis are probably doing the same thing behind closed doors. For once, there seems to be agreement in most of the international community that a deal with Iran is a good thing. I think it unlikely that the Iranians will deliberately derail the plan/deal because they are so desperate for sanctions relief; remember, Iranians can't even buy medical supplies or spare parts for commercial airliners currently because of the restrictions on their currency and other sanctions. So in terms of 'known knowns' and 'known unknowns', the most likely threat to any form of deal is going to come from the Israelis or the Saudis on the US side. The Israelis have huge influence on US policy and are adept at using it, whereas the Saudis are not quite so good at lobbying, and have bigger problems closer to home at present, so if this does go tits up, my money would be on the Israelis facilitating or provoking the failure.

You do realize that non jewish people, many of Arab decent, live in Israel? However, you make good points and, as to the deal, I agree with you to a point; we need to wait and see what is really what here. On the O/T part for a moment; I am certain that if a two state agreement is somehow achieved (which Hamas won't allow), that the sheer hate for a non-Muslim, very successful, democratic state in the region will not subside. They do not agree with Israel's right to exist, full stop. Those who know, know this.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

They do not agree with Israel's right to exist, full stop. Those who know, know this.

So how/when will that change?

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

They do not agree with Israel's right to exist, full stop. Those who know, know this.

So how/when will that change?

IMHO, it will change when another go is had at a two state agreement and Hamas along with anyone benefitting from the conflict being held at bay for a change.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

They do not agree with Israel's right to exist, full stop. Those who know, know this.

So how/when will that change?

IMHO, it will change when another go is had at a two state agreement and Hamas along with anyone benefitting from the conflict being held at bay for a change.

The US should bribe everyone - a monthly retainer for 5 years. Cheaper than war

[Art0ir]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

They do not agree with Israel's right to exist, full stop. Those who know, know this.

So how/when will that change?

IMHO, it will change when another go is had at a two state agreement and Hamas along with anyone benefitting from the conflict being held at bay for a change.

The US should bribe everyone - a monthly retainer for 5 years. Cheaper than war

And the arms industry pulls the plug on it's considerable donations...

[spitsfire]

Jimbeaux said:

You do realize that non jewish people, many of Arab decent, live in Israel?

Yes, I was more getting at the 'Right of Return' laws. It's also worth pointing out on that front that it's very difficult for non jewish people to successfully apply for Israeli citizenship.

Jimbeaux said:

However, you make good points and, as to the deal, I agree with you to a point; we need to wait and see what is really what here.

Thanks. The difficulty as I see it is that the opponents argument is centred on the argument that any delay is simply allowing the Iranians time to develop the bomb, and therefore they have a right to do 'whatever necessary' to stop it happening.

Jimbeaux said:

On the O/T part for a moment; I am certain that if a two state agreement is somehow achieved (which Hamas won't allow), that the sheer hate for a non-Muslim, very successful, democratic state in the region will not subside. They do not agree with Israel's right to exist, full stop. Those who know, know this.

You're right; they don't. But to some degree, they've been pushed into this position because the Muslim ME has been very badly treated by the US since WW2 - the US supported the Shah in Iran, who royally shafted the populace; they're still doing the same in Saudi, Kuwait, and the Gulf States; and moved from supporting Saddam (including selling him chemical weapons for some fun with the Kurds and the Iranians) to arguing that he was the worst leader in recorded history and invading the country. The Muslim ME populace have a reasonable claim that they've been retarded by US foreign policy, but they look at Israel (which has benefited enormously from the US) and think 'they're friends with the guys who've destabilised our region for a generation, and have done pretty well out of it, so death to America and death to Israel'.

I think the only way out of this situation is for Israel to build bridges - it will cost a lot, require them to admit to having done some bad things, and expose them to some risk, but I don't see any other way to heal these wounds. The argument you've set out above about them not accepting Israel's right to exist was arguably similar to Northern Ireland 20 years ago, and that old wound is slowly healing: Don't assume that because a hurdle appears insurmountable it actually is. If we proceed on that basis we're all fked......

[Pappa Lurve]

spitsfire said:

Whilst I'd agree with you about the perception of Netanyahu in the West (outside of the USA), I'm not entirely sure if Israel exercises supreme self restraint - Operation Cast Lead, the use of white phosphorus, facebook photos of Israeli snipers aiming down the sights at children playing football, and the relentless settlement building program, provide a lot of contrary evidence.

Israel has got a lot of good aspects - treating Syrian injured is an excellent example of that - but, by the same token, they're doing some pretty horrific things too, such as using white phosphorus on civilians. The blockade of Gaza (which includes basic medical supplies and other essentials like nappies) has more than a hint of collective punishment to it.

The Israelis are in a difficult position - any relaxation of the US position on Iran reduces the 'polarisation' of the ME, and makes it more difficult for Israel to cast itself as the West's only friend in the region. With a fairly right-wing and antagonistic government, they're almost inevitably going to oppose anything that brings the Iranians to the table, because it might allow the EU/US to go round them, and deal directly with the other ME powers. The EU in particular aren't very comfortable dealing with Israel - they don't like some of their actions in the OTs, for example - but are reluctant to criticise because any criticism of Israel immediately brings up the issue of previous anti-sematism in Europe.

As a consequence, I'd say the biggest motivator for the Iranians isn't getting sanctions lifted, it's being able to kick Israel in the stones in a very public forum. But hey, if it prevents nuclear proliferation in the ME, I'll take that as a win.....

Not read the whole thread but one thing always annoys me in this kind of thread anyway whihc is the mention of the blockade.

1) Medical supplies are allowed into the OT. Israli doctirs and hospitals routinly treat Palastinians as well as Israel has an superb medical system.
2) Why is the Israeli blocakde criticised and the Egyption one, which is far tighter, ignored?
3) Snipers shooting at kids? really? Evidence please - preferably some that has not been provved to be faked many times before. Kids have been caught in cross fire I seem to recall. Tragic but it happens but to suggest Israel does not do everything it can to prevent that shows very limited understanding of the situation.

4) Bibi generally is not much liked in Israel either but sadly, he is there due to PR and the fact there is noone else who is much good either!
5) Israel does not collectivly punish although one can see why peole think they do. The problem is that the policies in place now have stopped suicide bombings and lowered attacks to a much lower level, although still at a level where anyone else would have responded, so they have little choice in the short term. Obviously in time a peace settlememnt should mean such things are no longer required.

The Iran situation is an interesting one. Israels view is goverened by two simple facts which helps to understand why Israel does as she does. One is that they may rely on the US up to a point but they will take whatever military action they need to to maintain their safety. The logic is simple - Jews have seen over thousands of years that relying on others often is a very bad idea so when push comes to shove, given a choice between America saying "thats ok lads, we told them not to be naughty" or the IDF blowing the hell out of some sites and dealing with the politics later - Israel feels she has no option. A view I personally agree with sadly.

However, when one considers that Iran is a very split country there is a chance, not huge but a chance, that this could signal a more engageing Iran and if so, there are huge benefits to be had for everyone, Iran, Israel, Chine, Russia, the USA, EU etc. They know full well that America cannot and will not offer assurances on behlaf of Israel and they also know full well Israel is very clear on its own defence. There is reason for hope here, slim, but it is there.

[Pappa Lurve]

Jimbeaux said:

spitsfire said:

We're going waaaaay off topic here, but just to put it to you simply, Jim, there is a difference between having a 'right to be there' and recognising new citizens from other, often 1st world nations, on the basis of ethnicity or religion and then seizing land from other peoples for them to live in.

I've asked a few Israelis (albeit mostly the US/Israeli dual passport holders) and their attitude is mostly along the lines of "Israel is the Jewish State. I'm jewish, ergo I have a right to 'return' to the Promised Land". I've questioned how a person of Lithuanian jewish ancestry born in the US can be middle eastern, and been told it's because they are a jew, and all jews came from the old Israel.

I can't really say I buy that logic, but more to the point; I'm from a modern, multi-cultural society that actively legislates to prevent ethnicity or religious faith being taken into account in just about any form of official decision making. The idea that a nation should be able to actively discriminate on this basis is anathema to me. The fact that some arab states do it doesn't make it any better. Israel oft plays the card of being the only 'liberal, democratic and westernised' country in the ME, and I don't believe that one can make that claim at the same time as institutionally discriminating on the basis of faith, race or ethnicity.

But pack on topic; Israel are going bonkers about the Iranian deal very publicly; the Saudis are probably doing the same thing behind closed doors. For once, there seems to be agreement in most of the international community that a deal with Iran is a good thing. I think it unlikely that the Iranians will deliberately derail the plan/deal because they are so desperate for sanctions relief; remember, Iranians can't even buy medical supplies or spare parts for commercial airliners currently because of the restrictions on their currency and other sanctions. So in terms of 'known knowns' and 'known unknowns', the most likely threat to any form of deal is going to come from the Israelis or the Saudis on the US side. The Israelis have huge influence on US policy and are adept at using it, whereas the Saudis are not quite so good at lobbying, and have bigger problems closer to home at present, so if this does go tits up, my money would be on the Israelis facilitating or provoking the failure.

You do realize that non jewish people, many of Arab decent, live in Israel? However, you make good points and, as to the deal, I agree with you to a point; we need to wait and see what is really what here. On the O/T part for a moment; I am certain that if a two state agreement is somehow achieved (which Hamas won't allow), that the sheer hate for a non-Muslim, very successful, democratic state in the region will not subside. They do not agree with Israel's right to exist, full stop. Those who know, know this.

Pretty simple really. Jews are a recognised nation. Any Jew has the right of return to Israel becuase of that, makes no difference where one was born. The rational behind it is also important. As Jews, they have learnt through history that iof they are scattered and without a base, they often find themselves in nasty situations. Historically noone has ever protected them for long so Jews, regardless of their descent, tend to feel that as long as Israel is there, there is a degree of safety and security which did not exists otherwise.

From memory, 20% of Israeli population are non Jewish.

The critical thing to remeber is there is a distinction between the religeion and the race although I nfully accept it is one that is very hard to understand or explain. Closest I can think of is that not all UK citizens are Anglican nor does being Anglican make you English or even British obviously.

Finally, it is vital to remeber that the ME sitaution has very little to do with religeon anymore, if it ever really did. It is about land, power, money and in some cases, survival. It is often very badly reported and very rarely really well understood.

[spitsfire]

Just before I get into this; thanks for an articulate and engaging post - I don't agree, but I appreciate you taking the time to set your arguments out clearly!

Apologies for such a long and rambling post, but I'd like to address the points you've raised in turn.

Pappa Lurve said:

1) Medical supplies are allowed into the OT. Israli doctirs and hospitals routinly treat Palastinians as well as Israel has an superb medical system.

Sorry, should have been more clear - medical supplies are not explicitly blocked, but crossing delays and a lack of power in Gaza mean that medicines requiring refrigeration can't be reliably obtained. Similarly, the economic blockade means that they don't have any money to buy expensive medical supplies, so are dependent on charity. I had understood that hypodermic syringes were previously on the banned list, but can't find a reference to it, so will retract that part (but with the above caveats still applying). The blockade has effectively destroyed industry and commerce in the OTs; it allows manufactured or processed goods, but bans the raw ingredients or means of processing, explaining the horrendously high unemployment and low GDP of the OTs, and substantiating the claim that the blockade is punitive:see http://www.economist.com/node/16264970.

Pappa Lurve said:

2) Why is the Israeli blocakde criticised and the Egyption one, which is far tighter, ignored?

Because the Egyptian Govt aren't claiming to be fair, liberal, or enlightened, whereas the Israelis are. The Egyptian Govt (ie the military) are also completely dependent on US military aid, so they do as the Americans (and by proxy the Israelis) ask. Admittedly, they aren't very keen on Hamas either, but the driver is more the first two.

Pappa Lurve said:

3) Snipers shooting at kids? really? Evidence please - preferably some that has not been provved to be faked many times before. Kids have been caught in cross fire I seem to recall. Tragic but it happens but to suggest Israel does not do everything it can to prevent that shows very limited understanding of the situation.

I didn't mention shooting, but see Israeli sniper posts pic of child in crosshairs on Facebook. The most well-known example of a child being killed, and the one to which I think you refer is the Muhammad al Durrah video which, however you look at it, suggests that the Israelis continued to fire despite knowing there were civilians in the field of fire. I'm not for one second suggesting that they deliberately shot the child, but I'd argue that they showed less restraint than they would have done if it had been an Israeli father and child hiding behind the wall. I don't comment on whether the Palestinian Security forces would have shown that restraint, only that as a matter of fact the Israelis didn't, and a 12 year old boy died of multiple gunshot wounds from IDF bullets.

Here's an article from the Sydney Morning Herald, discussing IDF treatment of children in a wider context - have a look at the quotes from IDF soldiers at the bottom of the page. If a British officer did that now, they'd be in front of a court-martial, and rightly so: "The commander gripped the kid, stuck his gun in his mouth, yelled ... The kid was hardly able to walk. We dragged him further, and then he said again: 'One more time this kid lifts a stone, anything, I kill him. No mercy'."

Pappa Lurve said:

4) Bibi generally is not much liked in Israel either but sadly, he is there due to PR and the fact there is noone else who is much good either!

Agreed, but would add that the rise of the Orthodox fundamentalists (including Naftali Bennett & Friends) is pushing Israeli politics towards right-wing nationalism

Pappa Lurve said:

5) Israel does not collectivly punish although one can see why peole think they do. The problem is that the policies in place now have stopped suicide bombings and lowered attacks to a much lower level, although still at a level where anyone else would have responded, so they have little choice in the short term. Obviously in time a peace settlememnt should mean such things are no longer required.

I appreciate Israel has been the victim of suicide bombs and rockets, but the casualties on the Palestinian side dwarf those on the Israeli side, and have an alarmingly high number of children included. It's very difficult to find any reliable stats, because both sides politicise any deaths, but the UN produced some compiled stats from 2000 to 2007, suggesting that the Palestinians are suffering far more casualties than the Israelis- the graph in Section 3 on child deaths is particularly relevant here. The stats are compiled by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, and they have a better reputation for reliability than most of the others in that part of the world.

Pappa Lurve said:

The Iran situation is an interesting one. Israels view is goverened by two simple facts which helps to understand why Israel does as she does. One is that they may rely on the US up to a point but they will take whatever military action they need to to maintain their safety. The logic is simple - Jews have seen over thousands of years that relying on others often is a very bad idea so when push comes to shove, given a choice between America saying "thats ok lads, we told them not to be naughty" or the IDF blowing the hell out of some sites and dealing with the politics later - Israel feels she has no option. A view I personally agree with sadly.

Pappa Lurve said:

Jews are a recognised nation. Any Jew has the right of return to Israel becuase of that, makes no difference where one was born. The rational behind it is also important. As Jews, they have learnt through history that iof they are scattered and without a base, they often find themselves in nasty situations

I understand your point, but I think the idea that jews in Western Europe, North America or Australia are likely to be victims of pogroms or state-sponsored discrimination is laughable in the modern age: It's as daft as suggesting that black people in the USA should keep a suitcase packed in case slavery is re-introduced. I'd also point out that Jews are not a nation: Judaism is a religion: Israel is a nation. Religion is not, under international law, considered to be a deciding factor in defining nationality. Conflating the two confuses the debate.

ETA: The SMH link and quotation

Edited by spitsfire on Wednesday 4th December 07:59