Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Operation pillar of cloud. Israeli assault on Gaza

sadly, israel isn't the only country that has settlements and that. morocco has too in western sahara, and sudan did in the darfur conflict, as does China etc iirc.

Of course - considering the Tibet situation China's vote for Palestine in the UN did strike me as a bit ironic. Anyone sensible opposes it no matter who's doing it. But I think a key difference is that without the support of our governments Israel wouldn't be able to sustain its settlements and military occupation - I don't think is the case for the other ones, I know Cameron has criticised China's treatment of Tibet.

I didn't know about Morocco though, be interested to read about that if anyone's got any links.
 
SpineyNorman: What "Enforced Settlements" are you referring to? As for "Brutal Occupation" you must be joking. Since 1967, when Israel first gained control of those territories male life expectancy has nearly doubled in Gaza (48 to 75) and jumped 20 years in the so called "West Bank." From 1967 to 1993 when Israel oversaw the economy it grew by 25 percent ANNUALLY. Per capita GDP was higher than any surrounding Arab nation, literacy jumped 9 fold, residential electricity jumped from 20 percent to 94 percent, running water mirrored it. Where there was just one highschool for both territories in 1967 but there were hundreds in 1993. From zero universities there were 7. Water availability doubled from 64 million cubic meters annually to 120 million and on and on and on. For the first time "Palestinians" elected their own leaders, policed themselves, controlled their own educational system and religious institutions. Womens Rights were upheld for the first time and yet people such as yourself categorise Israeli administration as brutal.

CNT36: So what if a person wrote "lots of book?." That means that their views are sensibile? Chomsky DOES have to make do but he DOES NOT have to create fast and loose tax shelters to secrete many millions of US Dollars while simultaneously raising his voice in anger at the upper classes for utilising those very same tax shelters. That is known as "hypocrisy" and bespeaks an extremely flawed personality and outlook. Does he count the $12,000 per hour honorariums he receive as "accomodations" as well?
No it doesn't mean they're sensible but it wouldn't be sensible to ignore them anymore than it would be to believe every word. Have you got any evidence for this or that it interferes with his analysis? Because if you don't its irrelevant.
 
SpineyNorman: What "Enforced Settlements" are you referring to? As for "Brutal Occupation" you must be joking. Since 1967, when Israel first gained control of those territories male life expectancy has nearly doubled in Gaza (48 to 75) and jumped 20 years in the so called "West Bank." From 1967 to 1993 when Israel oversaw the economy it grew by 25 percent ANNUALLY. Per capita GDP was higher than any surrounding Arab nation, literacy jumped 9 fold, residential electricity jumped from 20 percent to 94 percent, running water mirrored it. Where there was just one highschool for both territories in 1967 but there were hundreds in 1993. From zero universities there were 7. Water availability doubled from 64 million cubic meters annually to 120 million and on and on and on. For the first time "Palestinians" elected their own leaders, policed themselves, controlled their own educational system and religious institutions. Womens Rights were upheld for the first time and yet people such as yourself categorise Israeli administration as brutal.


So they've never had it so good, is that the point? And yet they complain and complain and complain. Ungrateful bastards! Has Panto season started?
 
Of course - considering the Tibet situation China's vote for Palestine in the UN did strike me as a bit ironic. Anyone sensible opposes it no matter who's doing it. But I think a key difference is that without the support of our governments Israel wouldn't be able to sustain its settlements and military occupation - I don't think is the case for the other ones, I know Cameron has criticised China's treatment of Tibet.

I didn't know about Morocco though, be interested to read about that if anyone's got any links.

http://www.wsrw.org/a105x2351

http://www.wsrw.org/a106x2321

In addition, the entire trade seems unquestioned by the EU. The products are certified locally as “Moroccan” in the occupied territories by the Moroccan Ministry of Agriculture. These offices are remarkably approved by the EU. Through the practice, the EU has a completely different approach to the produce from Western Sahara than on the same vegetable production by Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.
 
The Saharawi liberation movement, known as the Polisario Front, fought the Moroccan army for 16 years, reclaiming approximately a fifth of their country. In response Morocco built a 1,000-mile long wall, heavily fortified and mined, which divides the Saharawi refugees from those who still live in the Occupied Territories. In 1991 the United Nations brokered a ceasefire and agreed to organise a referendum in which the Saharawi people could vote on the future of Western Sahara. Yet, the Sahrawis are still waiting for the vote to take place.

Morocco now refuses a referendum. The Sahrawis' representatives have even accepted that all Moroccans who have been illegally moved into the territory can vote in the referendum. Morocco has denied that too. In stead, Morocco has proposed that Western Sahara be integrated into the Moroccan kingdom.

Tens of thousands of Saharawi people still live under Moroccan occupation in Western Sahara. Although Sahrawis have ruled out terrorism as a political tactic, their lives and activities are severely constricted by a harsh security state.

The Saharawi flag is banned in Western Sahara, and speaking out for an independent state is illegal. Merely calling for human rights is enough to get organisations closed down and their leaders imprisoned. Yet Saharawis continue to speak out.

I'll try and find something else for you mate, a bit more academic! theres not much info there
 
Thanks :)

That's eerily similar to Israel. Why the fuck is nobody talking about it? Shows how shit journalism has become - I take an interest in this kind of stuff and I'd never heard of it.

It's not only that by ignoring it we allow these abuses to continue - though that's obviously the most important thing - it also allows zionists to talk about double standards. And they'd have a point.
 
No problem. I'll try and find something a bit more academic there are papers on that site about long-terms effects of occupation of a territory which I think would be quite interesting to read, comparing western sahara, palestine, etc
 
Tens of thousands of Saharawi people still live under Moroccan occupation in Western Sahara. Although Sahrawis have ruled out terrorism as a political tactic, their lives and activities are severely constricted by a harsh security state.

I'm glad you brought this up. It's something of a forgotten situation, isn't it? A slightly depressing thought is that it is forgotten because they have ruled out terrorism. Terrorism can work. :(
 
Of course - considering the Tibet situation China's vote for Palestine in the UN did strike me as a bit ironic....

A Palestinian envoy recently visited China. Apart from what is said in this article, I wonder what else was discussed?

He said China could succeed where the United States failed in finding a solution to end hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians.

"We are very interested in the Chinese role in all the Middle East because all the Middle East needs more efforts from the international community," he said.

"They want to be involved (in the Middle East) and we are interested in them being more involved. A special role (for) China is coming."
 
I wonder what kind of special role, though, given as that article states, that 'China generally opposes what it calls intervention in the internal affairs of other nations'. That does seem to be the way they operate - becoming involved where they see an advantage to them in terms of trade and development, but not the kind of involvement Western powers have generally gone for.
 
I wonder what kind of special role, though, given as that article states, that 'China generally opposes what it calls intervention in the internal affairs of other nations'. That does seem to be the way they operate - becoming involved where they see an advantage to them in terms of trade and development, but not the kind of involvement Western powers have generally gone for.


China are still spooked about Tibet n stuff & are very wary of precedents set that may impact their own situation. So yes, its involvement a la carte innit
 
I'm glad you brought this up. It's something of a forgotten situation, isn't it? A slightly depressing thought is that it is forgotten because they have ruled out terrorism. Terrorism can work. :(

I don't know if it's just about terrorism although i agree that is a factor - kashmir for example has probably killed far more people than israel/palestine and recieves a lot less attention in the media
 
we should note that guerrilla warfare has been replaced by the tag terrorism. It's what you do when the opponent is a large conventional military. Harass with bombs, assassinations, make the enemies territory an armed camp. And yes it can work. Without an effective counter insurgencey strategy it can render the greater force hand tied and gaining new recruits for the other side with every new measure of repression it puts in place to combat them. And so it spirals till a grudging peace or the complete destruction of the guerrilla force, root and branch.

There has to be a softening of hearts. And the man with the bigger stick should lay it down first
 
we should note that guerrilla warfare has been replaced by the tag terrorism.

Guerrilla warfare and terrorism aren't synonymous. Guerrilla warfare can and often does involve a small force using irregular tactics against a larger armed force. Guerrilla warfare has taken place many times in many places without anyone considering it necessary to strap sticks of dynamite onto sixteen year old girls.
 
Guerrilla warfare and terrorism aren't synonymous. Guerrilla warfare can and often does involve a small force using irregular tactics against a larger armed force. Guerrilla warfare has taken place many times in many places without anyone considering it necessary to strap sticks of dynamite onto sixteen year old girls.


yes thats the point I was making

So the specific tactic of suicide bombing is something you consider to be new and against the queensberries? I don't like it btw, age or gender aside its a waste of life for both target and bomber.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/01/hillary-clinton-william-hague-israel-settlements

William Hague (Friend of Israel, mind) re the 3000 settlements...

Hague asked Israel to reverse the decision and said the prospect of a successful two solution was receding. "Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and undermine trust between the parties," he said in comments Saturday. "If implemented, these plans would alter the situation on the ground on a scale that makes the two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, increasingly difficult to achieve."
Hague added: "They would undermine Israel's international reputation and create doubts about its stated commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians."
What's this then?
 
yes thats the point I was making

So the specific tactic of suicide bombing is something you consider to be new and against the queensberries?.

Two questions there.

People have blown themselves up, taking some enemies with them, probably since gunpowder has been around, but in the past, it was used almost exclusively against military oppoonents, with the odd politician etc thrown in. Best example in recent history is the kamikaze, but there again, it was against military targets. The use of explosives carried into public places to kill civilians really only came to the fore in the Eighties.

The targeting of civilians in order to shake the resolve of an opponent has its modern genesis in the US Civil War, and the tactics of the Union Army. Before that, armies tended to fight one another. Is it right or acceptable to do so? It's just a fact of the time we live in, a time when most everyone seems to believe that the end justifies the means.
 
...The targeting of civilians in order to shake the resolve of an opponent has its modern genesis in the US Civil Wa..

No...

"Then Samson prayed to God, "remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes" (Judges 16:28)".[4][11][16]"Samson said, 'Let me die with the Philistines!' (Judges 16:30)[11][18] He pulled the two pillars together (or possibly pushed them apart),[19] and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it.[4][8][11][17][18] Thus he killed many more as he died than while he lived." (Judges 16:30).[8][18]
 
In the context of the Palestinian conflict, the use of suicide attacks were mainly confined to two years of the second intifada. It's not a tactic I support, in fact it was a tactic that was entirely self defeating for the resistance and set back the cause of international solidarity by a generation. It is widely accepted by the resistance that it was self defeating tactic. Which is one of the reasons such attacks rarely occur now. Nevertheless, it occurred in a context and it is important to remember what that context was.

The first intifada was almost entirely based around mass protest and demonstrations. Unless you count stone throwing against tanks to be violent, which I don't, then it was also predominantly peaceful. Guerrilla attacks occurred but they took a back seat to mass protest, strikes, rioting and civil disobedience, non payment of taxes, underground schools, political graffiti etc. The Israeli response to that uprising was to crush it with unbelievable brutality against civilians. Israeli tactics included the widespread use of snipers against stone throwers. Including snipers firing from helicopters. brutal night raids and mass arrests of over 120.000 people.The Israelis also used artillery and tank fire against demonstrators. Rabin ordered A mass campaign of breaking the arms and legs of stone throwing kids, a policy that resulted in literally tens of thousands of kids having their limbs broken as the result of punishment beatings and a daily toll of death that killed over a thousand people in two years. This was a deliberate policy of preventing any form of Ghandian civil disobedience by using overwhelming force.

It is no coincidence then that the first suicide bombing occurred in 1993 at the end of the first intifada. It was a direct response to the brutality of the Israeli "iron fist" policy to crush the first intifada and the desire by some to reply to Israel's brutality and violence by inflicting some casualties on the other side. Suicide attacks also increased in 1994 following Baruch Goldstein's massacre of 29 worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

When Ariel Sharon sparked the second intifada by visiting the Al Aqsa Mosque in 2000, the Israelis immediately responded with extreme violence including live fire against demonstrators. In the first 5 days of the intifada they killed 47 Palestinians and wounded nearly 2000. Israel also opened fire on protesting Israeli Arabs killing 12.
It was in this context then that Palestinians began targeting Israeli civilians in suicide attacks starting from 2001, Throughout the 90s, suicide attacks averaged one or two a year. From 2001 that number rose to about 40 a year with 40 in 2001 and 47 in 2002. That number declined down to 23 in 2003, 17 in 2004 and 9 in 2005 and 3 in 2006. The last suicide bombing in Israel occurred in 2008 when there were 2 attacks. The last attack launched by Hamas was against an IDF post not civilians when 3 suicide attackers injured 13 soldiers at the Kerem Shalom border crossing in 2008. Hamas has since announced the cessation of suicide attacks.

This is what Amnesty said about the violence of the second intifada
The overwhelming majority of cases of unlawful killings and injuries in Israel and the Occupied Territories have been committed by the IDF using excessive force. In particular, the IDF have used US-supplied helicopters in punitive rocket attacks where there was no imminent danger to life. Israel has also used helicopter gunships to carry out extrajudicial executions and to fire at targets that resulted in the killing of civilians, including children...Hamas and Islamic Jihad have frequently placed bombs in public places, usually within Israel, in order to kill and maim large numbers of Israeli civilians in a random manner
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/01/hillary-clinton-william-hague-israel-settlements

William Hague (Friend of Israel, mind) re the 3000 settlements...


What's this then?

Just words in my opinion, stating the obvious. Hague could have been saying this all along, these 3000 new Israeli homes are not the 1st violation of international law. He seems to think that saying this now will change something? I reckon he's just saying it so that he can quote himself at a later date as having said something more that it being meaningful.

'Undermine Israel's international reputation' ? :hmm: What reputation? The UN vote spoke for itself. So do the many demos and organisations that oppose the occupation, many from within the global Jewish community and active groups in Israel. They don't have a reputation, aside from being 'cnuts'! :(
 
Just words in my opinion, stating the obvious. Hague could have been saying this all along, these 3000 new Israeli homes are not the 1st violation of international law. He seems to think that saying this now will change something? I reckon he's just saying it so that he can quote himself at a later date as having said something more that it being meaningful.

'Undermine Israel's international reputation' ? :hmm: What reputation? The UN vote spoke for itself. So do the many demos and organisations that oppose the occupation, many from within the global Jewish community and active groups in Israel. They don't have a reputation, aside from being 'cnuts'! :(
Obama could stop settlement expansion with a phone call if he wanted. All he has to do is call Netanyahu and tell him to stop or there is no more money. They would stop immediately. Of course, he won't. No US administration ever will.

Every US administration since Lyndon Johnson has claimed its opposed to settlement expansion including Carter, Reagan. Bush senior, Clinton, Bush jnr and Obama. It is well known that settlement expansion is the number one impediment to a peace deal. Yet incredibly a freeze on settlements wasn't even part of Oslo. Since Oslo the settler population in the occupied territories has doubled, from 232.000 in 1993 to over 500.000 now and they continue to grow at an average of 3.5% annually.

The only conclusion anyone can reasonably come to is that the US is complicit in Israel's colonisation programme
 
Excellent thread all. I've been reading, but not commenting.

Just thought I would add that this article asks some interesting questions.
 
Angry drum beating from UK and France over planned East Jerusalem settlements. Ambassadors summoned.

Israel throwing all the toys out of the pram - the settlement build and seizing 75 million of the Palestinian's tax money it collects 'on their behalf'. Fucking idiots.

Israel's having a bit more of a tantrum than usual, and don't appear to have the usual support - oops.
 
It is an interesting development. Clinton, Ban Ki Moon, now France and the UK, all making strong protest and all, in recent history, supporters or appeasers of Israel. I just wonder if Obama's second term might start to show some proper muscle.
 
Back
Top Bottom