Israel president Shimon Peres accuses Britain of pro-Arab bias

[aws]

This is where the UK govt went wrong during the Troubles. Should have just carpet- bombed Dublin.

[Stu Monty]

Laws and rules are put in place by people with power, but that doesn't mean they aren't legitimate. The EU, for instance, is a highly democratic organisation representing dozens of democratic nations. If the EU says that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, then can anyone say that this is something arbitrary, decided by the powerful with no recourse to the people?

 

I think there is a certain amount of wanting to eat your cake and have it. If we're going to cite rules when criticising Israel, and goodness knows we do that often enough, then you have to acknowledge that rules cut both ways.

 

For instance, if we say that Israeli settlements are illegal under the Geneva Conventions, then we can't suddenly decide that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Hamas when it comes to Israeli soldiers who have been captured.

 

And if we're going to say that Israel's behaviour is deserving of censure under international law, then we can't reject international law when it says that Israel has the right to exist.

 

I see a lot of this cherry-picking, both by Israel and its supporters and also by Israel's opponents.

 

So far as terminology is concerned, there is a clear difference between legitimacy and morality. The IDF is the legitimate army of a sovereign nation recognised by the vast majority of nations on the planet. Hamas is not. This does not mean that everything the IDF does is moral, and that everything Hamas does is immoral.

 

I understand the point about "kidnap" and "capture" making apparent moral judgments, but I don't think it has anything to do with morality, it is all about legitimacy. If I declared my house and garden to be a sovereign nation, then imprisoned the postman in my basement, people would be talking about me kidnapping the mailman, not capturing him. This is because declaring your home as a sovereign nation is not a legitimate act.

 

I would probably agree that I hesitate to make moral judgments, and would sooner make reference to legality and legitimacy. This is because morality is so subjective, and so often depends on who is doing something. I'd wager that most people here who have a problem with Israel killing a few thousand civilians in defence of their nation have no problem with us killing a few million civilians in the defence of ours. Gaza is a fucking picnic compared to what we did to Dresden.

 

Well I think we've already disagreed on the idea that in a battle where one side is massively more powerful, and in this case is as close to infinitely more powerful as makes any difference, that the same moral rules apply to both sides. I also think you would come to my side of the fence a lot more if you actually had a boot on your throat and weren't just talking moral and legal hypotheticals.

 

I think you're being deliberately generous to the media by trying to make out the wording they are using is based on legitimacy. If you and I can both look at those words and know that they carry very loaded meaning then so do journalists. Many will chose words to deliberately because they are looking to influence opinion, not to pass information.

 

As I say, if you can come up with how news of a sprained ankle gets on the BBC without a wider agenda being pushed then I'm all ears. I think to claim that legitimacy drives the language used is pretty disingenuous as you're bright enough to be aware of the differential in voice and media influence on this issue. 

[Strontium]

I think a few people might have more of a problem with your interpretation of "defence", more than anything else.

Leaving aside the level of force involved for a moment, do you not agree that Israel has the right to use force against militants firing rockets at it from beyond its borders?

 

 

This is where the UK govt went wrong during the Troubles. Should have just carpet- bombed Dublin.

Nobody carpet bombs anyone any more. But as the grandson of a fellow born in Cork, I'm not about to argue with you.

[Stu Monty]

 

 

I support democracy for everyone, so I don't really follow your implication. Sorry.

 

I would love, absolutely love, to see a democratic Palestinian state. I have some beachfront property in South Dakota to sell to anyone who thinks Hamas are ever going to deliver a democratic anything to anybody.

 

I have some to sell to anyone who thinks that Israel wants a democratic or progressive Palestinian leadership instead of Hamas.

 

When you have no intention of peace then supporting a militant branch of your enemy, against a more secular, less militant branch, is quite a cute move.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself. By using force.

 

But you can't answer the question properly without the level of force being considered.

 

The past few days - soldiers get killed, the force gets ramped up, with seasoned Gazan's describing it as unprecedented.

 

Watch tonight. Mightn't happen, but I'm fairly confident that Gaza will be bombarded like never before because of today's events.

 

I don't see that as defence. It's a retributive punishment. A muscle flexing assault. Mainly on people who are not culpable,

[Stu Monty]

Leaving aside the level of force involved for a moment, do you not agree that Israel has the right to use force against militants firing rockets at it from beyond its borders?

 

 

 

Nobody carpet bombs anyone any more. But as the grandson of a fellow born in Cork, I'm not about to argue with you.

 

Until it stops illegally occupying, and accumulating, land then no, it has no rights at all with regard to the reaction.

[Anubis]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this board, and this board has had some real stupid shit posted on it.

 

A state that openly sponsors and harbors terrorists.   Yeah, let's pray they get the nuke as fast as possible.

 

Most warped thinking possible.  Incredible really. 

 

You live in a state that sponsors terrorism. Which shows how much of a dumb fuck you actually are. 

[Stu Monty]

I see that the US had called Hamas barbaric today.

 

I didn't see that sort of language when Israel bombed a UN school full of displaced children, the location of which they had been made aware of 17 times.

 

That legitimacy goes a long way when it comes to the language used, it would seem.

[Jairzinho]

I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself. By using force.

 

But you can't answer the question properly without the level of force being considered.

 

The past few days - soldiers get killed, the force gets ramped up, with seasoned Gazan's describing it as unprecedented.

 

Watch tonight. Mightn't happen, but I'm fairly confident that Gaza will be bombarded like never before because of today's events.

 

I don't see that as defence. It's a retributive punishment. A muscle flexing assault. Mainly on people who are not culpable,

 

More importantly, you can't answer the question properly without considering the rest of the context. The narrative does not start with Hamas firing rockets at Israel.

 

If Israel weren't oppressing Palestinians, stealing land from them, keeping them in a giant prison, and generally running an apartheid like state, and then Hamas fired rockets at them, then you could argue that its Israel that are "defending themselves".

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Ah, at last, somebody going with what I've said.

 

Channel 4 News. Israeli strikes, going by all the timings given, occurred BEFORE the kidnapping incident.

 

Again, I ask, ceasefire?

[Section_31]

Have kept off this thread because views are so entrenched, but I have to disagree with SD saying Israel has the right to defend itself against militants. If it was I'd understand, but it's not interested in limiting the strikes to combatants, not in the slightest.

 

It's akin to the British going after the IRA by shelling civilian homes and bombing schools in Derry run by the UN.

 

There are rules to war.

[Dougie Do'ins]

I see that the US had called Hamas barbaric today.

 

I didn't see that sort of language when Israel bombed a UN school full of displaced children, the location of which they had been made aware of 17 times.

 

That legitimacy goes a long way when it comes to the language used, it would seem.

Seen that too. If anyone was ever in doubt as to Americas 'real' view towards all this then that claim should remove that doubt. I actually get annoyed when I see Kerry acting, and it is an act, as the peace broker.

 

Obama should be ashamed of himself. Came to power and promised so much but has turned out to be the most ineffectual president I've seen. Making a decent attempt at sorting this shit out could have been his legacy. Instead, he'll just be remembered for being the first black president. Whoop de fucking do.  

[Funkasy]

Have kept off this thread because views are so entrenched, but I have to disagree with SD saying Israel has the right to defend itself against militants. If it was I'd understand, but it's not interested in limiting the strikes to combatants, not in the slightest.

 

It's akin to the British going after the IRA by shelling civilian homes and bombing schools in Derry run by the UN.

 

There are rules to war.

 

If the IRA was voted by 60% of the people, then that could be considered. 

[Moo]

Obama should be ashamed of himself. Came to power and promised so much but has turned out to be the most ineffectual president I've seen. Making a decent attempt at sorting this shit out could have been his legacy. Instead, he'll just be remembered for being the first black president. Whoop de fucking do.

He never would have tried.

Can you imagine all the dickhead Americans if he'd have shown any sympathy towards the Arabs? All the Obama/Osama shite would have started up and taken hold.

He should never have been elected, he said fuck all of substance during his campaigns and actually promised little. The Democrats should have stopped him in his tracks, but they saw him as their ticket back into The White House solely because he's black, and so it came to pass.

[Dougie Do'ins]

He never would have tried.

Can you imagine all the dickhead Americans if he'd have shown any sympathy towards the Arabs? All the Obama/Osama shite would have started up and taken hold.

He should never have been elected, he said fuck all of substance during his campaigns and actually promised little. The Democrats should have stopped him in his tracks, but they saw him as their ticket back into The White House solely because he's black, and so it came to pass.

It should just be about human decency to do the right thing but sadly, your right.

[Section_31]

If the IRA was voted by 60% of the people, then that could be considered.

How so? That Hernandez bird was elected by the Argies, if she decided to attack the Falklands should we shell some hospitals in Buenes Aires?

[Section_31]

Agree on Obama, he's shite. The Yanks' Tony Blair, the ultimate sophist.

[Phoenix]

If the IRA was voted by 60% of the people, then that could be considered. 

 

Indeed. Ever heard of Sinn Fein?

[Jairzinho]

Does it actually matter who the president is?

[Moo]

Agree on Obama, he's shite. The Yanks' Tony Blair, the ultimate sophist.

But so predictable if anyone would have actually stopped to listen to what he was [not] saying instead of being taken in by his schtick. This supposed great orator actually always came across as a bit of a cunt, an insencere, fake, utter cunt.

[Moo]

Does it actually matter who the president is?

It certainly mattered when George Dubya was president.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Reports of execution squads killing Arabs in Khuuaa.

 

It's all got very Shabiha/Syria, if true.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/01/who-is-behind-gaza-s-mass-execution.html

[Jairzinho]

It certainly mattered when George Dubya was president.

 

I think the influence of JP Morgan Chase, Coca-Cola etc is far more important.

[Captain Turdseye]

I still haven't got a clue what any of this is about. Are we winning?

[Jairzinho]

I still haven't got a clue what any of this is about. Are we winning?

 

No.