Slaughter in Gaza

[tha]

Originally Posted by kladner

... a more detailed analysis than I can muster, with Chapter and Verse of International Law-

Hmm, if you like International Law so much, can you explain to us why for each and every UN member state, for each and every people, the status of 'refugee' is the same, except for the palestinians? Can you explain to us why International Law should be implemented in such a way that the UN has virtually no budget available for the refugees of Syria, Iraq, or basically each and every region in the world, and the bulk of the resources go to palestinian refugees? And can you tell me if it is in accordance with International Law to have almost each and every UN school for children to be used as a weapon depot?

[S485122]

Originally Posted by tha

...
And can you tell me if it is in accordance with International Law to have almost each and every UN school for children to be used as a weapon depot?

According to who ?

I am afraid your sources are perhaps a wee bit biased.

Jacob

[S485122]

Originally Posted by tha

Hmm, if you like International Law so much, can you explain to us why for each and every UN member state, for each and every people, the status of 'refugee' is the same, except for the Palestinians?
...

Because at the time the problem originated (mandate of the UK over Palestine) the Palestinians were stateless and did not fall within the "normal" refugee status.

You could read the Wikipedia article for a more objective depiction of the "United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East", criticism and defence are both covered.

Do try to take into account the amount of money spent on spin by lobbies linked to Israel, compare it by the budget of their enemies and do not forget what the public relation companies are capable off (see f.i. the Nayirah testimony organised by the PR company Hill & Knowlton.)

Jacob

[tha]

Originally Posted by S485122

Because at the time the problem originated (mandate of the UK over Palestine) the Palestinians were stateless and did not fall within the "normal" refugee status.

You can not be serious. When the British rule ended the area of the mandate was divided into an Arab land and Jewish land. The jews declared their state to be named Israel. The Arabs claimed it was mainly part of Jordan and Egypt. It for sure remained like that until 1967. The term Palestine then would have suggested two Jewish states. The whole idea of an Arab state of Palestine did not come up until way after 1967 when the PLO fought a war against Jordan. More Palestinian people got killed in wars with other Arabs than all conflicts and wars with Israel, before and after.

Well, at least we can be lucky that from the time the current Gaza war started all atrocities in Syria and Iraq have magically ended. As it looks from here in Europe.

[wblipp]

This five minute video claims the Middle East Problem may be the hardest conflict to solve, but it's the easiest to explain.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by wblipp

This five minute video claims the Middle East Problem may be the hardest conflict to solve, but it's the easiest to explain.

It would seem that it's also one of the easiest conflicts for practising the art of portraying, in a 5-minute film, one side as completely blameless and the other as having only murderous intentions. It seems to me that (1) a similar film could easily be made supporting the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries which would be equally beguiling, and (2) the one-sided tone of the film may be a good illustration of the completely blinkered view shown by both sides in the conflict and is in itself the reason why the Middle East Problem is so hard to solve now, irrespective of the historical events since 1948.

[kladner]

Remarks removed out of a sense of futility.

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

It seems to me that (1) a similar film could easily be made supporting the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries which would be equally beguiling, and (2) the one-sided tone of the film may be a good illustration of the completely blinkered view shown by both sides in the conflict

To use the terminology of Polarity Management, I think you are saying the film is accurate but incomplete. That's a much more constructive response than denouncing it as lies and propaganda - which is frankly the response I expected to see in the soapbox. Of course admitting that it is incomplete requires abandoning its "easy to explain" claim. But admitting it is accurate puts some hard truths on the table that don't always get aired.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by wblipp

To use the terminology of Polarity Management, I think you are saying the film is accurate but incomplete. That's a much more constructive response than denouncing it as lies and propaganda - which is frankly the response I expected to see in the soapbox. Of course admitting that it is incomplete requires abandoning its "easy to explain" claim. But admitting it is accurate puts some hard truths on the table that don't always get aired.

Incomplete, yes. Lies and Propaganda? I did not use either term, but I implied propaganda and do indeed classify it as such. And propaganda has no place in discussion. Accurate? I shook my head in total disbelief when the film reached the point where it compared the two scenarios: Israel stops fighting, or Palestine stops fighting. The former apparently leads to annihilation of the Jewish state of Israel. The latter, according to the film, means immediate peace. Is that a hard fact and an accurate truth? Anyone?

[tha]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

The latter, according to the film, means immediate peace. Is that a hard fact and an accurate truth? Anyone?

If you want to understand a people you could take a fingerprint of the nation. Countries that have equal fingerprints have about equal ways of thinking. You take a fingerprint of a country by looking at the fundamentals of a country. Let us compare The Netherlands, Denmark and Israel:

number of square miles: about equal.
amount of citizens: same category when compared to all nations.
hence population density: comparable to each other.
all three countries have a coastline, hence access to the seas.
national income: comparable.
distribution of incomes: about equal.
percentage of money earned in agriculture, industry and services: about equal.
size of parliament: equal.
number of political parties and spread of ideologies: same.
all three use coalition governments.
media landscape (number of independant newspapers, tv-channels etc): same.
average amount of time spent during working, leasure and home chores: comparable.

You can make the list longer, all fundamentals are equal. Israel stands apart from The Netherlands and Denmark in only a few fundamentals:

climate: sub-tropical vs moderate sea-climate.
form of statehood of surrounding countries: dictatorships vs other democracies.

The first has profound effects on the types of vegetation found the second on foreign policies.

Dutch, Danish and Israeli people think excactly alike.

To the credit of the Palestinian people, when asked about the three dreams they have it is:

A. a nice house or an apartment. (Noticed the tv-reports from Gaza? The houses and city dwellings look much better than any other Arab countriy with exception of the oil rich Gulf states and were mostly build before Israel withdrew form Gaza.)
B. a good education for their children, preferably in the US.
C. summer holidays, preferably in Europe.

Unfortunately, no one asks the Palestinians what they want. Decisions for them are taken mostly in Teheran and some in Doha. The ayatollahs are prepared to continue the war, even if they have to fight until the last Palestinian is dead.

[Brian-E]

Thanks. The political similarities and differences interest me especially.

Originally Posted by tha

[...]Let us compare The Netherlands, Denmark and Israel:
[...]
size of parliament: equal.
number of political parties and spread of ideologies: same.
all three use coalition governments.
[...]
Israel stands apart from The Netherlands and Denmark in only a few fundamentals:
[...]
form of statehood of surrounding countries: dictatorships vs other democracies.
[...]

Israel is formally a democracy. But there are democracies and democracies. I grew up in one where the population was badly informed and deliberately misled by its primary media, particularly its popular newspapers. In my twenties I moved to another where the population was much better informed and could vote accordingly. Do you, or anyone else, know what sort of news and information the Israeli population receives on a day-to-day basis? In particular, are the pictures of death and destruction in Gaza brought to their homes? And do all political parties get a fair representation in the media, in particular those media with wide circulation? (These questions would be answered in the negative for many "democratic" countries in Europe. Does Israel do better?)