Freedom on Trial - Along With Geert Wilders!

Maybe.

Up until the second intifada (? 2000) the conflict was viewed primarily from the outside as "Israel v the Arab Countries", with some radical Palestinians tossing bombs and blowing up airliners on the side. The subplot was also a bit of "West' vs "East" and "US" v "USSR", and Israel was the underdog.

What has changed is that the Arab Countries are clearly out of the conflict, (the not-so recent Israel - Lebanese/Iran Proxy war aside). This has focussed the conflict much more on the "strong" v "the weak" and highlighted the plight of the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

With respect to Israel's behavior deteriorating, a case can be made about that in Gaza. In the West Bank, however, recently the economic opportunities are greater and aside from the residents who have to deal with the wall, the lives of the average West Bank Palestinian is better now than 10 years ago. Sure there are settlements and there is no doubt they are an impediment to the eventual two state solution, but for the average Palestinian in Hebron, Ramallah, or Bethlemhem, the settlements do not affect their lives.

 

Powerful countries get away with stuff all the time. That's always been the case in the same way that 'big' clubs get calls that 'small' ones don't.

In terms of public perception, (as opposed to what people 'get away with'), then it's more a factor of whether you like the people of the other country and share similar interests so Britain will be more forgiving of the USA than, say, France and vice versa.

What's different in the case of Israel is that it's not a powerful country but is perceived to 'get away' with stuff because the USA backs it up, sometimes even against it's own interests in the wider region.

Not sure about Germany but in the UK the left has always been concerned with Israeli actions when they're seen to be acting unreasonably. But I think the more general point is that, for some people on the left in Europe, (not me I hasten to add), there's an element of plain contrariness about them. The old right-wing idea of 'my country right or wrong' is reversed so it doesn't matter WHAT their country does, it is, by definition, WRONG!

The problem is, of course, that the Israelis are STILL continuing to build in the occupied territories so it's not like something happened back in '48, '67 or '73, they're still 'occupying' it a bit at a time for every brick that's laid on another.

In fact if someone told me that the Israelis don't want an end to the conflict if it means they have to 'draw a line' which then can't be changed, I could almost believe them. There's some logic to that position too. Better to continue the conflict, (and let's be honest, how many people have died from rocket attacks anyway... 20? 30? over the last 10 years, less than are killed on the roads I expect), and they can continue building for another 20-30 years to reflect the 'reality on the ground'.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n....ment-drive-as-8216urban-sprawl8217-2011-03-16

As for all this 'everyone hates me, nobody loves me, I'm gonna run away and eat worms' crap some people come out with... give me a fecking break!!!

When you say, from the outside, I think you mean 'from America' don't you? Coz I can ASSURE you that's not the way it's seen from most European countries and probably elsewhere. The Palestinians have always been the most significant part of the calculation although it has to be said that some ME countries have used them as an excuse, (a 'stick' as it were), to beat the yanks with.

Also when you say that 'Israel was the underdog', again... it's mostly viewed the opposite way because Israel has the US standing behind so THEY'RE seen to be 'bullying' against the Palestinians. Now, to be clear, there's a fair element of anti-Americanism in that sentiment, certainly from the left wing in Europe but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

The interesting thing about the west bank is that, as you say, conditions there HAVE improved. There was an interesting program on the, (supposedly 'anti-Iraeli'), BBC recently examining the issue. Part of the improvement comes from the fact the Israelis have reduced their unnecessary controls and influence in the area but also because the Palestinians have reduced their attacks.

The two aren't unrelated of course.

Yeah, a veritable paradise I'd say

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idplcNmNr4o"]YouTube - Life in Hebron[/ame]

No, look mate, the Israelis have acted absolutely appallingly in many of those areas and that's the reason they're in the situation they're in with their immediate neighbours. Although, (and again on the 'anti-Israeli' BBC), there was coverage of Jewish and Muslim people's attempts to work together in setting up non-denominational schools and let the children play and grow up together. I guess that's something we can all get behind.

 

Andy is English, and I haven't lived in say, France, so that's what I was referring to. People conveniently forget that during the '48 war the entire Jewish population of the Old City in Jerusalem was cut-off and destroyed by the invading Arab armies. But that's OK, because Palestinians are a cause celebre now (although, really, anyone opposing the Jews tends to be unless they're famous). I agree with people like Dr. Jay that the current situation is untenable and do think a real two state solution needs to happen sooner rather than later. (And I hate Netanyahu and Avigdor Liebermen and their ilk.) But I cannot abide people arguing that Israel 'gets away' with things more than other countries. Yes, that's right, let's have the British lecture us on the finer points of these things. The same British that initially built the refugee camps and had the biggest hand in subdividing the region at Versailles in order to get at the delicious, delicious oil which Churchill had already identified as crucial by 1920. I don't recall Israel proposing sanctions due to the brutal treatment of the Northern Irish in the 70s and 80s. But that was totally different, you know, because the IRA were attacking civilian targets, right?
Remember kids, Jews get away with everything, even when, during a war 60 years ago, they did the same thing to the enemey that the enemy tried to do to them first! Apparently Andy expected Israel in 1948 to win the war, suffer its casualties, then apologize to the Arabs for forcing them to invade and offer them restitution for anything that may have happened in the meantime. You know, exactly the way the British did with Ireland, India, Wales and other places too numerous to mention.

 

Yes, because before they captured the West Bank their immediate Arab neighbors LOVED them. In fact, the Arabs didn't get remotely angry over Israel until Israel, out of absolutely nowhere, assaulted 3 freedom loving Arab nations who had never uttered a peep about Israel and took the West Bank in the most brutal fashion imaginable. But even then Israel's neighbors were OK with it - because they loved Jews so much (as did the whole world - Jews get away with anything!). But, finally, when Israel began building settlements over the past 20 years, the Arab nations finally said "enough!", and began an ongoing peaceful movement to get the Israelis to stop. It's the completely unprovoked Israeli actions in Hebron and other West Bank cities that have resulted in a loss of relations with Iran, Syria and Egypt. Of course.

 

Well, leaving aside my previous admission that 'big' countries, as we used to be, get away with shit that others don't, (not saying it's right - it's just a fact), but that isn't the case with Israel which 'got away', (in the long run I mean), with occupying Palestinian lands because of the support of the west and, most tellingly, the Americans.

Also you seem to think the actions of the arab countries is the most important thing and the fact that they attacked Israel, (even if it were as simple as that), is all that matters but that wasn't the case when Iraq, an arab country, attacked Kuwait, another arab country, in 1990, was it. On THAT occasion the yanks wanted to protect their oil so hammered the Iraqis.

Regarding the other points, the bulk of which are totally irrelevant...

Ireland was partitioned in '22 because the majority in the south didn't want to be part of the UK although the majority in the north did. As I said before, Irish papists were used by King Charles to launch attacks on the English back in 1400's during the English civil war. They now have a joint government in the north where some ex-terrorists hold positions of power. Not sure why you mention this though.. unless you think the Israelis are thinking of giving ex Palestinian terrorists a role in THEIR government?

India was given independence in 1947, a fact that was actively supported by the British left-wing.

Wales.... er.... yeah. Not sure WTF you're on about there, tbh. They, together with the Scots and Northern Irish, have been heavily subsidised by the English taxpayers from a VERY long time. They've now got their own assemblies. Mind you, could do with some of their fellas on the left wing for England over the years. You can't seriously be comparing that to the current Palestinian/Israeli dispute, surely.

But hang on a minute... are you under the impression that I can go to Wales, sling some fella out of his house and start living there because the English subjugated them back in the 1500's or whenever it was? I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken if you do think that.

If you could just wipe the rabid foam from your mouth for a minute you'd realise that I was talking about their immediate neighbours, i.e. the Muslim woman that lives across the street in the youtube vid I posted.

Jesus, get a fecking grip will yer???!!!

 

If you think before you post, I will.

 

Yeah, for the time devoted to it there was a lot more analysis of what was happening. TV progs like 'This Week', 'Panorama', (although that's still going albeit in a cut-down format), and 'TV Eye' provided some excellent in-depth coverage. That's why it's always rather annoying to be told, (particularly by people who weren't even fecking ALIVE back then), 'Oh, you didn't even know about blah, blah, blah'. Well, yes, I did actually. Relatives of mine served in the middle east, including Israel, just after the war and saw what happened. Some of us don't need to rely on wikipedia for our knowledge.

Well, not all of it anyway

Of course, regarding the point about news coverage, there's just a lot more of it, in total, than there was back then. The problem is, despite the amount of it, there's sometimes a lack of quality and plurality so we just get the same stuff from 45 different sources.

 

That's pretty sad. No defense for it whatsoever.

 

That is one perception. There are several others that open minded people have to agree could be at work:

1. Bias against Jews...unless you think anti-semitism doesn't exist ?

2. Bias against Palestinians/non-first world people....Huh, you might be saying ? Don't think for a second there are not people who look at a specific situation where a powerful group is persecuting a less powerful group and think that if its a first world country doing the persecuting (i.e. Israel) its terrible, but if is a third world country (Sudan, Libya, Palestine) the outrage isn't there because subconciously those people EXPECT such actions.

Almost ? You should definitely beleive it. I think a significant segment of the Israeli population and certainly the Likud party and other ultrareligous parties dont want to end the conflict as it exists right now. They have no reason to. Other than the occasional rocket into Sderot, the average Israeli's life is safer and more economically prosperous now than 10 years ago. The wall may be an abomination for the Palestinians, but it has brought relative peace to the average Israeli.

Not that I agree with it, but looking at it from the Israeli side, it all boils down to Gaza/Hamas. The average Israeli is thinking "we pulled out of Gaza and look it what it got us...rockets into Sderot. Thats what happens when you give into the Palestinians"

I never implied that it was. I was responding to a comment that Israel is treating the Palestinians worse now than 10 years ago. I don't think that is universally true. The West Bank is NOT a paradise but it is getting better.

 

Well, from a British perspective in particular, that's an interesting one.

Back in '48 there was no question but that everyone in Britain, (except for a few nutcases), weren't anti-semitic. They they started calling British soldiers nazis because we were trying to keep the lid on a massive influx of Jews from Europe and murdering British soldiers. After that, not so much.

There's always been a strong 'arabist' element in parts of the British establishment, particularly the FO but I think the main feeling was one of helplessness in the midst of what seemed an intractable problem.

Actually, I wasn't.

Agreed. Strangely, (and I agree with nic in this sense that it's unfair), that's also why we expect better of the Israelis because they ARE a democracy and are often from western countries.

Yes, again I agree. It's exactly the same sort of idiotic, short-sighted views that the British right had to the situation in Northern Ireland.

Until they FINALLY came to their sense and realised you have to work with people rather than against them. Just a pity several thousand people had to die in the meantime, isn't it.

Some of the people in the areas like Hebron areas should be given free, (and decent quality), housing by the Israeli state. The position is ridiculous atm.

Again, this is something we've struggled with in Northern Ireland as you may know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_lines



Does that look familiar to anyone?

 

Further to my previous youtube vid from Hebron, some coverage of so-called 'loyalists' harassing women and schoolchildren at Holy Cross, (so Catholic), primary school, together with some others.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIdfe2H3bXU"]YouTube - Holy Cross Belfast 2001[/ame]

Again, look familiar?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAVrcNp2l2k"]YouTube - Protestant Sectarianism Towards Catholics (1 of 4)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2d4NPNmSfQ"]YouTube - Walls of Shame: Belfast - 26 Nov 07 - Ep 4 - Part 1[/ame]

I see we're beginning to see similar scenes in the USA now with Muslims being harassed sometimes.

 

All left/right BS set aside (I'm a lefty with several points of view that a leftist is not ought to have in some people's view - and just to be clear: I sympathise with socialist ideals and the fact that socialist have been at the forefront often where others did nothing, but I believe any rigid myth, be it religion or politics, can never be the answer)... I hope we can all agree that islam is not a threat. The threat stems from a very conservative stream that gains popularity by taking a stand against "the west" not out of a hate of freedom, but out of the simple fact that we control their nations more than they do.

From there on it's easy to use religion as a political tool, and if one was to choose between radical islam or the supposed oppressor that is being drawn out as the root of all their problems... It's an easy choice for those who feel marginalized.

And if anything, the uprisings in the middle east have shown once more that those Arabs have balls and (when it boils down to it) a sense of community and belonging that a great part of the western world seems to lack.

I don't care much for religion, but I care even less for this terrible western superiority concept. And anyone trying to stigmatize a whole religion would be wrong IMO. Especially when this person, as geert wilders does, makes a direct connection between religion and ethnicity. Wilders claims that young street criminals of North African descent are an islamic problem.

For me, that proves the fact that he is in fact a racist. He connects religion with ethnicity. A steep slope from there on. And the worst part is that a great deal of the population does not feel this is wrong. Why? "Because the crime statistics say so". So why not hate a whole group based on the trouble with part of that group. I don't even care if it's a majority or minority.

My grandmother lived through the war. She would have detested Wilders. And so does the majority of my family. Anyone who tries to play groups of people out against each other, does so for a reason. And that reason is not our general wellbeing.

History tought us that much. And I'll be damned if history repeats itself while I'm just standing there. Fascism should be combated with arguments preferably, but afaic... anything goes.

In my country nowadays, that would make me a radical. 20 years ago, it was common sense.

 

You seem to long for some things that yet you would never allow for yourself.

If the western world seems to lack a sense of community and belonging, maybe it's because of all the head games they play with their people about daring to have a sense of community and belonging. "That's racist!"

Having "balls" seems to be an admirable quality.....sometimes.

 

Time to close the thread I'd say

 

Ask most religious people in America and they will tell you that Christianity is Conservative.

Both suck in my opinion.

 

Exactly! Both are shit, but in the "west" Christianity is not as Barbaric as it used to be in the past, the separation of church and state made the west a better place than the middle east.

The question is can Countries with majority Muslim population separate church and State?

Can Religious people (of all kinds) that live in the west respect the separation of church and state?

 

Chewing gum in class, murder, what's the difference? They're both bad, yeah!

I would say that if you are a public figure, like a comedian, or a writer, let's say... and you can make fun of, scrutinize or criticize somebody's religion and get away with it (with only a few minor insults and nasty looks), then I'd say that's not quite so nearly the same predicament as needing bodyguard protection 24/7 for the rest of your life.

 

Bill Maher is a hero of the left? That's news to me.

 

I know north of 100 muslims, all of whom are active participants in our democracy and capitalist economy. How many do you know?