Israel

[willedoo]

Watching some of the footage of Israeli air strikes on Gaza, it's astounding how entire multistory  buildings are dropping just like in a planned demolition. They must be using big bombs, maybe of the bunker buster type. I saw one blast hit at ground level on the the outside of a ten story building and the whole building pancaked and toppled over.

 

Another factor might be poor quality building standards. Low cement content in the concrete and not enough steel reinforcing would do it. I remember seeing some poor building practices in Indonesia in the 1980's. They had the steel tied and formwork boxed up ok, but the concrete was tipped into the formwork boxing by labourers with wheelbarrows. They didn't agitate the poured concrete; where it sat in the formwork after being wheelbarrowed in is where it set. When they removed the formwork after concrete setting, there were large gaping holes everywhere. They just bogged these up by hand with concrete and plastered over it. The completed, painted buildings looked flash, but internally were riddled with weak spots and fault lines. It's not surprising so many buildings fall down in earthquakes in those countries.

[onetrack]

I would have to opine the Building Inspectors in Gaza are few and far between, and the Building Standards laws in Gaza are extremely lax. We saw the result in the Turkish earthquake, they're slow learners in these countries.

 

However, I'm not entirely convinced our own building standards here haven't become lax, too - as witnessed by the numerous apartment building failures and the regular balcony and wall collapses, as well.

I'm amazed that so many varieties of cheap construction are now tolerated in new home construction. Fastwall bricks look like a recipe for quick collapse to me, and so many houses are now being built simply with lightweight steel stud framing and some cheap-looking cladding. A good earthquake here will soon sort out who was swimming without pants.

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by onetrack

[willedoo]

Even the brick and block mortar is dodgy in some of those countries. They are stingy with the cement and the sand portion is often large diameter grit, a bit like some very gritty beach sand. Certainly not what you would call brick loam. It wouldn't be any stronger than the old fashioned slaked lime mortar. You don't need a hammer and bolster to dismantle it; a decent fart would knock the bricks off.

[old man emu]

1 minute ago, willedoo said:

a decent fart would knock the bricks off.

Well! Shit a brick and fart a pebble!

[spenaroo]

keep in mind that concrete is usually smuggled in,
the Israeli's wont let in anything that could have a dual military use.

so a lot of the building materiel is restricted so they cant be turned into bunkers and fortifications

[old man emu]

I have nothing against any person of Hebrew ethnicity, nor of any adherent to the Hebrew faith. My dislike is of the anti-Arab actions of the Israeli parliament, which can reasonably be separated from the life on the Israeli Commoner.

 

It amazes me that an ethnic group which suffered such unjustified genocide from 1933 to 1945, could, when given the sympathy and assistance of the Western World, engage in so similar actions against another ethnic group.

 

I have to make quite clear that as yet I have not fully studied the history of The Levant in the late 19th and to the third quarter of the 20th Century. To clarify, The Levant  is an approximate geographical term referring to a large area in the Eastern Mediterranean region of West Asia. In its narrowest sense, which is in use today in archaeology and other cultural contexts, it is equivalent to Cyprus and a stretch of land bordering the Mediterranean Sea in western Asia: i.e. the historical region of Syria ("Greater Syria"), which includes present-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and most of Turkey southwest of the middle Euphrates.

 

However, my understanding is this: The French and British occupied The Levant after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI. Under the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed from Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration, which promised to establish a "Jewish national home" in Palestine, but appeared to contradict the 1915–16 Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, which contained an undertaking to form a united Arab state in exchange for the Great Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I.  

 

The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, promises could have been seen by Arab nationalists as a pledge of immediate Arab independence, an undertaking violated by the region's subsequent partition into British and French League of Nations mandates under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916. The Balfour Declaration, likewise, was seen by Jewish nationalists as the cornerstone of a future Jewish homeland.

 

Against the wishes of the Palestinians, the British facilitated Zionist settlement of Palestine by upholding liberal immigration policies and allowing Jewish mass immigration. The immigration caused a major demographic shift and alarmed the Arabs. In the census conducted in 1922 the population of Palestine was 763,550 of which 89 percent were Arabs and 11 percent Jews. By the end of 1947 the Jewish share of the population had risen to 31 percent.

 

The Israelis seemed to have the financial backing to gain power and to develop the country following Western European economic practice. One must remember that the massive increase in the Jewish ethnic population came from Western Europe, carrying with it the skills and philosophies developed over a period of a thousand years. The Arab population did not have that history.

 

None of this, of course, can excuse the treatment the Israeli parliament has caused to be inflicted upon the very people who have shared the same lands since Abrahamic times. Is it any wonder that a section of teh Arab population cried, Enough is Enough! and retaliated as strongly as it could?

[spenaroo]

yeah,

add in the Christianity aspect of the old testament being about wiping out the original inhabitants.
Its bad on both sides.

and the fact that there is no mention of Arabs in the original declarations.
the common thinking of the time is that they would just move, at that time there was no Palestine etc... just the ottoman empire.
the borders and nations as we know it came afterwards - they were seen as one people so why wouldn't they move to Jordan or Syria....

The Jews had a British colonial mindset

[facthunter]

Don't think the analogy fits. They wanted a HOMELAND not  colonies  I think their original hassle was with the British 70 years ago. Just in passing, the Iranians are NOT Arabs and are quick to mention it . Nev

[old man emu]

37 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I think their original hassle was with the British 70 years ago

Worse than that. It goes back to the end of WWI - 100 years ago.

 

The 1915–16 Hussein-McMahon Correspondence was what gave rise to Lawrence of Arabia.  In general terms, the correspondence effectively traded British support of an independent Arab state for Arab assistance in opposing the Ottoman Empire. It was later contradicted by the incompatible terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, secretly concluded between Britain and France in May 1916, and Britain’s Balfour Declaration of 1917.

[onetrack]

The State of Israel is nothing more than a fabricated nation, founded on terrorism - founded on the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 by the Zionist terrorism organisation, the Irgun - which group was backed by the Haganah Jewish paramilitary leadership, based in Palestine.

These groups intention - which succeeded - was to drive the British from Palestine to form the current State of Israel, in line with hardline Jewish beliefs that they are the "chosen people" as mentioned in the Old Testament, and that they will re-establish themselves in the region as Gods Chosen People, the Israelites, in the "latter days", as mentioned in Biblical texts.

 

The problem is, the Israelis and the State of Israel today have little to no relationship to the Israelites of Biblical times. The people gathered under the current-day Nation of Israel are nothing more than a motley group of a multitude of nationalities, simply held together by a common belief in a petty, ritualistic religion, that has managed to survive to the 21st century.

 

Todays Rabbinic Judaism is merely the extended development of the Pharisees of the time of Jesus Christ - and JC rebuked these people for their pettiness in rules, their love for money, and their token and selected choice of the parts of the teachings of God that suited them. Sort of like a lot of religions today.

 

I firmly believe that any State or Nation founded on terrorism will fail to survive in the long term, as compared to a State or Nation founded on relatively peaceful terms.

Of course, warring is part of humankinds history, but the descendants of Cain specialise in murderous attacks, and the region around Lebanon and Palestine is noted as the Land of the Canaanites. Recent DNA research determined that Canaanite DNA still resides in Gaza. But virtually all the Middle East now contains Canaanite descendants, the only difference today is which ritualistic God they worship.

 

I personally feel that WW3 will be a nuclear war between Israel and the Arabic nations, and I have little doubt the current day Israelis will not flinch from using nukes on their eternal religious enemies, if it appears they are going to be overwhelmed.

[spenaroo]

The thing that amazes me with the research I've done is just how young all of this history is.
we often call Australia a young nation - but most of the fighting didn't exist 100 years ago.
we are effectively only a few generations in. 

Initially the Jews were escaping Christians (pogroms in eastern Europe, hell at one point the Pope had to denounce anyone that harmed Jews as being excommunicated - it didn't work) and considered the sons of Ishmael as allies 

its nothing like the Muslim and Jew hate that we have been sold it as.
it politics - not some ancient feud that always was and always will be

Edited October 12, 2023 by spenaroo

[Jerry_Atrick]

13 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

Its nothing like the Muslim and Jew hate that we have been sold it as.

I wonder if it is a product of the middle east itself, rather than religion.

 

I have an Iranian Muslim and Israeli Jew on my team. Even now, they get along fine.. they jibe each other about the differences between Kosher and Halal food, for example.

 

When I did law here, there was quite a devout Pakistani Muslim in the class. Yet, he fiercly stood up to any anti-semetic rehtoric that came out.

 

Two anecdotes in a billion Muslims and 10 million Jews, I guess does not make a statistically valid sample.

 

Since the conflict, I read there was a 400% increase in anti-semetic incidents (on what basis, I am not sure).. But it was the far right white supremacists that were accused of perpetrating them.

 

I think it is a bit like English soccer fans.. get them out of the stadiums and pubs when the games are on, and they are quite civil.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[spenaroo]

Im listening to a podcast,

fear and loathing in new Jerusalem 

 

and one of the questions the host asks, is at what point does a group become a people?

for example the Americans. the patriotism they have for country is greater then that of family.

i saw similar in Africa with identifying by tribal group first - leads to plenty off corruption

Edited October 12, 2023 by spenaroo

[Old Koreelah]

Australian troops were part of the invading armies that toppled the Ottoman Empire. It may have been on its last legs anyway, but for centuries had been remarkably successful at keeping a reasonable peace between dozen of ancient ethnic enemies.

 

Outsiders sure bugggered up that peaceful co-existance! Australian airmen returned home from the post-WWI skirmishes in what became Iraq with a form of PTSD. They felt they were in the wrong side, being required to attack the villages of Kurds- honourable people they admired- yet defending local Arabs, who they learned not to trust at all.

In case anyone thinks Christians have some sort of monopoly on good government, The Moslem Ottomans did a pretty good job of keeping the peace; some still do:

[facthunter]

The "Crusades' are all about conquest and confiscation. Nev

[old man emu]

What is a Semite?

 

The confusion between race and language goes back a long way, and was compounded by the current meaning of the word “race” in European and American usage. Serious scholars have pointed out — repeatedly and ineffectually — that “Semitic” is a linguistic and cultural classification, denoting certain languages such as Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic or some neighboring dia­lect, and in some contexts the literatures and civilizations expressed in those languages. As a kind of shorthand, it was used to designate the speakers of those languages. At one time it might thus have had a connotation of race, when that word itself was used to designate national and cultural entities. It has nothing whatever to do with race in the anthropological sense that is now common usage.

[willedoo]

I've known a few Maltese people over the years, but only recently found out that Maltese is part of that Hebrew/Arabic group of languages.

[facthunter]

The RAT RACE is over.. The RATS WON.  Nev

[old man emu]

That makes Maltese a Semitic language. Is it any wonder that modern Maltese is Semitic?

Malta's prehistory ends in around 700 BC, when the islands were colonized by the Phoenicians, who spoke a Semitic language. They ruled the islands until they fell in 218 BC to the Roman Republic. The island was acquired by the Eastern Romans or Byzantines in the 6th century AD, who were expelled by Aghlabids, another Semitic-speaking mob, following a siege in 870 AD. Malta may have been sparsely populated for a few centuries until being repopulated by Arabs in the 11th century.

[old man emu]

In light of the current Israeli Government's action in Gaza, I wonder if this would be an opportune time to invite Benjamin Netanyahu to visit the Melbourne Holocaust Museum to speak to survivors of the actions of the Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany. Benjamin Netanyahu is a Baby Boomer, born in 1947, raised in Jerusalem and in Philadelphia in the United States. He worked as an economic consultant for the Boston Consulting Group, a group that has been known to be involved in some shady financial goings on.

 

One of those survivors is Abram Goldberg, who lost 15 members of his family to the Holocaust. He was 20 on May 2, 1945, when he was liberated by the American army in Germany from the Wöbbelin concentration camp, weighing just 29 kilos. Mr Goldberg immigrated from Poland to Australia in 1951. The 99-year-old still volunteers at the museum, speaking with students and sharing his story, and said he feels proud to see the museum today. "I dedicated my life to not letting the world forget what actually happened," he said. One of those students of History should be Netanyahu.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

5 hours ago, old man emu said:

One of those students of History should be Netanyahu.

I agree with you... but probably not for exactly the same reason. He has always been a "bit" right of centre, but his lurch to the hard right and religious zealots (fanatics), while attempting to subvert democracy is a very good reason for him to visit the Holocaust museum lectures (and it may have the secondary effect of a little more compassion to the average Palestinian in Gaza). What is happening now, particularly in the West Bank and Hebron, is intimidation and aggression to non-Gaza Palestinians. I have not read how they have fared in other areas. He may well be reminded of his peoples' history on that front.

 

And to be clear, I am not condoning the unnecessary loss of Palestinian life, nor am I indifferent to it. But,  as Williedoo has said, the Russians have killed many more civilians, but the world doesn't quite go as nuts over it. Are Ukranian lives worth less? Not to mention the displacement of what, 3 million people, and of forcible taking of over 300,000 children to Russia - a war crime in itself (admittedly, not genocide). However, the difference was there was no Ukrainian provocation or attack to start with. I would say Putin should attend those lectures.

 

The difference with Netanyahu is that the Nazis acted without Jewish (nor Roma, gay, and whoever else the Nazis persecuted and attempted to annihilate - the key word - anniihilate) provovation or attack. They did it through pure hatred. It is very different to attacking an enemy who has (constantly) attacked over a long period, just killed 1800 of their citizens and taken many hostages and that enemy hides behind the people they purport to represent. The deaths are collateral, and Israel typically provides warning for Palentinian citizens. It comes to a question of priority for both Israel and Hamas. My point is, this is not indiscriminate killing out of hatred of Palestinian people per se; it is, however, a brutal response to a brutal attack on their citizens, and, that is differnt to the Nazis; so Netanyahu is not quite in the same camp as Hitler.

 

Having said that, there has to be a better way. I am not a battlefield strategist, so I don't know, but now the US, France, the UK, and indeed Australia are now calling for restraint, it may be reaching a point when internatioonal military intervention is required to break up the fight. Just like it was timely long ago with the Ukrainian war. Note, the calls for restraint are for one side only. You can't resolve an issue of both (or all) sides are willing to come to the table and negotiate, unless you allow them at it until one side says they are beaten enough.

 

Lately, there is not a day that passes where I am not thankful that I have been born in Australia and chosen to live in relatively free, democratic, and peaceful societies, where we can express our opinions; we we can embrace our differences;  where, apart from the odd scuffle and incident, we can go about our days knowing we are likely to live to see more. Of course, that has somewhat been shattered as a fight thousands of miles away seems to bring out the worst in some people - of both sides.. where the other war only brought out a minor contoversy of Djokovic's father.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

Making money from selling weapons might be influencing our local politics. Albanese is soft talking rather than condemning the mass killing of innocents.

 

Quoting from Aljazeera:-

 

"What is known is that Australia has issued 350 defence export permits to Israel since 2017, including 52 this year alone, according to the Australian Department of Defence. That information was only made publicly available after direct questions from Shoebridge during Senate hearings this year."

 

Darn greenies! Are they against everyting profitable?

 

We have already taken sides by selling arms to one side of the war.

Edited November 13, 2023 by nomadpete

[old man emu]

Why should we take sides in an internal civil conflict? Hamas didn't stick its nose into the Voice conflict.

[Marty_d]

We shouldn't take sides, except so far as one side's ruling party is a terrorist organization and the other side's ruling party is a rabid right wing expansionist group with links to hardline fundamentalists. 

I'm for the innocent people on both sides and not at all for their leadership. 

[facthunter]

Life is too cheap in many of these adventures. When you become aligned that way you have to be expected to be justifiably regarded as a BAD GUY. OR where ARE we?  The final solution to "exterminate" the trouble fails on what happens after and where do you stop.? Get rid of anyone who doesn't think like you?  Nev