Retribution does not mean Crimes against Humanity.

[old man emu]

It's hard to write about how one feels about the current situation without being labelled a racist, but bear with me.

 

I don't know any people of the Hebrew persuasion because they live in a part of Sydney away from where I grew up, and in later years raised a family. In those later years I did live amongst those of the Islamic persuasion. I'm prepared to take people of both persuasions on face value. Don't shit on me and I won't throw it back at you. However, that does not stop me from disliking -isms.

 

The -ism I have come to hate is Zionism as it has been displayed in Palestine/Israel for 75 years. How can one deny that the forcible evacuation of the inhabitants to an area to what in reality is an open prison is not wrong. How can anyone deny that the response of the Israeli Government to the presence of non-Jews is no different to the National Socialist Party's treatment of non-Aryans in the second third of the 20th Century.

 

A person or a country is permitted to use reasonable force to protect from assault. After bearing the assaults, both physical and economic that the Israeli government has made on the Palestinian people, is it any wonder that there has been fits and starts of retaliation over the years, culminating in the recent event? The Israeli Government has used excessive force in seeking to eliminate the perpetrators. But in doing so it has committed much graver Crimes against Humanity that Hamas did a few weeks ago. 

 

It riles me that after a generation of non-Jews laid down their lives to free the Hebrew people from the National Socialist Party, those whose forebears were freed choose to apply the same genocidal acts against a group with whom they initially agreed to respect. 

 

There are Jewish people who are crying out against the Israeli Government's policies. We've seen them marching in Sydney on the weekend. I applaud them for their humanity. Perhaps those Australians who follow the Hebrew faith should be reminded that they are Australians first, the same as the Aborigines; the Vietnamese; the Sudanese, the 1956 Hungarians, and those who have freely chosen to abandon their places of origin to give their loyalty to Australia. Keep out of another country's internal politics. 

 

If the politicians of this country give any support to the Israeli Government, then they stand as aiders and abettors in the war crimes. At least Paul Keating has the moral fortitude to say, "No" to this disgusting exhibition of Zionism.

[willedoo]

I was reading where Gaza has a population over 2 million and it would fit into Kangaroo Island 12 times.

[pmccarthy]

Anyone who creates and lives in an enclave, wears identifying garments and speaks another language is always going to be singled out and victimised. This goes for any religion or creed. Folks who integrate, as did the Greeks and Italians in Australia, become part of their new community and are loved.

[onetrack]

I have little time for any of the Middle Eastern tribes and religions. They're all as bad as one another, and they've spent thousands of years warring against other tribes and other religions.

The Jews have got themselves hated everywhere they go in the world, thanks to their pursuit of great wealth, their petty rules and regulations of their religion, and their constant aim to keep themselves apart from "inferior religions".

 

On the other side of the coin, the Islamics worship a God of Hatred, a God of Murder, a God of Intolerance. They've killed more of their own than they have of opposing religions and tribes, because of their intolerance and religious rules.

They worship potent weapons and give their children firearms, and teach them that only weapons will make them free from their enemies. Not much different to Christian Fundamentalists in America, really.

 

A Fundamentalist is basically an intolerant murderer and a perpetrator of continuous and ongoing hatreds. Yet they all claim their God desires Peace on Earth. Not much hope for Peace, the way they behave.

The Bible tells us Peace will only come to the Earth when all the swords are turned into ploughshares. We're going to be waiting a long time yet, before that happens. 

 

This current War in Gaza is only one of hundreds that have occurred in the Middle East, and there's probably still hundreds to come. Their cities are built on dozens of cities and civilisations that have been destroyed by War and overthrow, in aeons past.

The worst thing we can do is to take sides, and to get involved in this latest round of tit-for-tat religious wars. I'd prefer we just give them weaponry, and then let them fight to the last man standing.

[spacesailor]

If Hamas had Not lobbed those missiles into their neighbour. 

This war would not be happening. 

They DID , It is WAR .

To turn the ' other cheek ' is Christian ! , NOT JEWISH. 

spacesailor

[old man emu]

9 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

If Hamas had Not lobbed those missiles into their neighbour. 

This war would not be happening. 

Probably, but when you have been beaten and bashed for 75 years, one day the next bashing becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

[spacesailor]

So , the Jews Are fighting back ! .

There's no population " Beaten & Bashed " , as the English . For over 500 years . ( started in the 3rd or 4th century).

spacesailor

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by spacesailor
A little more !

[willedoo]

The politicians all like talking about a two state solution. I can't see that working unless they split the acreage 50/50, which the Israelis will never do. Both sides are always going to want more.

[onetrack]

The simple problem is both sides have declared they want to totally annihilate each other, and wipe the other mob off the face of the Earth. Not much hope of a peaceful solution when both parties hold those intractable views.

[old man emu]

Let's just lay the cards on the table. The document that started this whole mess was a letter from the Foreign Minister to to Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild (of Tring), a leader of the Anglo-Jewish community. Note the words " nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The declaration aroused enthusiastic hopes among Zionists and seemed the fulfillment of the aims of the World Zionist Organization

 

 

WHY DID BRITAIN DO THIS?

The British Government made this declaration because:

1. The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially in the United States, to the side of the Allied powers against the Central Powers during World War I.
2. They hoped also that the settlement in Palestine of a pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in neighbouring Egypt and thus ensure a vital communication route to British colonial possessions in India.

 

[facthunter]

There was NO Islam involved with the Anglo-Irish wars but it was between TWO Christion  groups.  . Seems religion is often the basis of the conflict(s).( Wahhabi, Sunny Vs Shiite

[old man emu]

The test of whether this is a "Holy" war or simply a disgusting succession of war crimes will be if the Israelis observe the Sabbath at the end of this week.

16 hours ago, onetrack said:

the Islamics worship a God of Hatred, a God of Murder, a God of Intolerance.

That is a damning statement - either to those described or to the maker of the statement. The maker should support the statement with facts that show that the religion is separate from the secular. 

[spacesailor]

F H.

The Irish Were Not Christian. 

So the " pope " wrote a ' papal bull laudabiliter ' . To Henry IV , forcing him to " reform the governance of the irish Church 

And the Irish system of governance according to the Latin church ecclesiastical system " .

So then it was not war,  just invasion. 

 

Pope Nicolas V . Gave Portugal a papal bull to " .legaly grant Portugal  the right to enslave any and all people 

they encounter south of Cape Bojador,on the coast of western Sahara "  .

spacesailor

 

 

[onetrack]

 

Quote

The maker should support the statement with facts that show that the religion is separate from the secular

There is no secularism in Islam. It is a religion, a Govt and a culture, all rolled into one. They do not approve of police or a separate legal system, because "only God can judge" in their religion.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, spacesailor said:

The Irish Were Not Christian. 

Christianity was strong in Ireland before it was in Britain especially in the west of the island. Pope Adrian IV gave Henry II the OK to go to Ireland to straighten out the Irish Church. Rome had long been troubled by “irregular” practices in the Irish Church: its organizational structure was still largely monastic rather than episcopal; the monasteries more often answered to local Irish kings and nobles than to church officials; many church offices were hereditary (which meant that that church property was effectively hereditary also); irregular sexual practices flourished among clergy and laity (such as polygyny and concubinage); Ireland celebrated Easter at a different date than the rest of Western Christendom; and Irish monks even sported a style of tonsure that differed from that of their continental confreres. Therefore, the Roman Church welcomed the prospect of forcing the Irish to conform.

 

Although Henry won papal approval for his Irish adventure in 1158, he didn’t exercise the option until 1171, by which time Adrian was dead. It is ironic that by the time Henry Ianded in Ireland, the church reforms desired by Rome were already well underway. But Henry was trying to stop some of his Welsh/Norman vassals were in the process of setting up an apparently separate kingdom in Leinster under the leadership of Richard de Clare (“Strongbow”), a man whom Henry distrusted and disliked. Also, Henry was in trouble over the murder of Thomas Becket, and was glad of the opportunity to disappear to Ireland until the heat died down.

[nomadpete]

Reason doesn't  seem to figure large in any war.

What trouble me significantly is the fact that USofA instantly took sides. Supporting the mass murderous retaliation.

 

Quickly followed by good old Aussie puppy dog politics - always afraid  to say anything that isn't  preapproved by Washington.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Retribution should not be the primary aim of this "defence", nor should innocent civilians be caught up in the cross-fire.

 

To not blame Zionism for the sad state of affairs that is Israel would be ingnorance. But to fully blame it would also be. I don't know much about the ME situation, only having taken an interest in it when we had a discussion about it after the UAE declared they were normalising relations. Part of what I found out was Zionism started in the 1800s as Jews in Europe, and I think the USA banding together to buy land from wealthy Arabs in the holy land. I contended at the time that did not justify the creation of a nation state from an existing nation state of Palestine, but OME corrected me to say that Palestine was not a country.  So, I am still at a loss how anyone can hold valid title to a place that is not sovereign as who's laws would apply to the title of land? But, as there seems to be no denying from all sides that this was done, the people who were apparently legitimately buying the land were progressively taking up residence on that land. What is wrong with that and why shoudl those no longer owning the land be entitled to it (note, this is different to native title in Aus, where the land was taken and the high court agreed, illegally).

 

I was remionded that the Jews bought the land and did not originally forcibly take it by an article on either The Age or ABC website (can't recall and can't find it), in which a Palestinian has been offered up to USD$100M for his house in Hebron. It is on Al Jazeera's web site for reference: https://www.aljazeera.com/program/al-jazeera-world/2018/9/5/the-hundred-million-dollar-home. I haven't read the AJ version, but the Aussie version quoted the owner as being scared the Israeils will eventually take it by force.. But they have yet to do so. From my earlier research there was disagreement about whether Israel purchased all of the land that was in the original UN artivel for Israel and Palestine, bu there is no denying it was farily significant.  So, Zionism seems to be about the peacefull bringing of the Jewish nation rather than by force.

 

Yes, Israel has taken more land since, but this would sort of be expected given they have been continually attacked; they create bigger and bigger buffers for the safety of their people. I, however, agree that the West Bank settlements should not happen; this is provocative and inciteful. They could have kept them as Palestinian areas under Isreali military supervision if not rule, for security reasons.

 

But, we come to this tragic state today and, to be honest, for the plight of the average Palestinian civilian. I am not going to go into what I have posted previously on the subject. Except to say Palestinian civilians have been the pawns in a conflict between those that want to see the Jewish nation survive and those that want it wiped off the face of the earth.

22 hours ago, onetrack said:

The simple problem is both sides have declared they want to totally annihilate each other, and wipe the other mob off the face of the Earth. Not much hope of a peaceful solution when both parties hold those intractable views.

That is true of one "side", but the other seems to have wanted peace in its declaration of independence. The day after Israel declared independence, 5 Arab nations piled with with the mantra no negotiating with Israel and to wipe them off the face of the earth. Iran still has that approach and of course, it is Hamas' Charter. Israel have from day 1 separated military from civilian (although national service is military and you remain as a reservist for a long time). Hamas, Hezbollah, and the like don't. They are self-appointed by force (and there is another militia now in Palestine that make Hezbollah look like a tame security company, apparently). Their sole purpose is to overthrow the Israelis and claim the original Palestine land as an Islamic country. Which is kinda strange when you consider that Palestine is the holiest land for Christians and Jews, but Mecca is for Islam; although there is obviously religiously significant sites in the Palstine/Israel lands. Be that as it may, they do not separate out the military and civilian areas; they hide amongst them. At least Al Qaeda and I think Isis did not do that.

 

I largely agreed with your first post, but there are a couple of things I didn't agree with for the record; first, I think all Abrhamic religions and sub-religions think they are the right ones, and not just Jews; a fanatic is a fanatic; I think the Jews rejection of Chist as anything more than a normal person who lived has more to do with the historical hatred than the chosen ones, or their peculiar rites and rituals; aft3er all Islam is much the same in it believbes it is the one true religion (and therefore the chosen ones) and has, to us, some fairly strange rituals, too; the difference is they accept Christ as a prophet.

 

The second thing I don't agree with is that they should all be let to fioght until the last man is standing.. I accept the tempting prospect that would be, but I don't find that particularly attractive.

 

I am not saying israel is angelic in this. There have been atrocities committed by Israel now and in the past. But I have provided evidence already of where Israel has held its own to account when done so; I have not seen the same with Arabic countries (although I am happy to be shown where this has been done). In this particular war, Israel is not only seeking to defend itself by going in and getting the Hamas leadership - to try and break their enemy; there is retribution as well. I am not sure it positively wants to extrace innocent civilian blood unnecessarily, but it seems sure indifferent to it; although they usuallyu provide warnings before each attack, including where they are going.

 

Hamas knew what they did would incite what is happening. I am guessing they didn't know it would be this bad as they did catch the Israelis asleep at the defence and political wheel (one youtuber cited 7 days between the attack and a political reaction). The ferocity of the strikes on Hamas, and the ground invasion tactics are definitely designed to send a clear message and I think act as retribution; and this shoudl not happen as a defending nation regardless; once security is restored, there will be time to bring those who are still alive to justice afterwards. On that, Israel is at fault, but Hamas and the collective Muslim Bortherhood (of which Hamas was born) are also at fault of the plight of the innocent Palestinian citizen, and I am sure they are as indifferent (at best) of the plight of Palestinian civilians  as the Israelis.

 

 

23 hours ago, willedoo said:

The politicians all like talking about a two state solution. I can't see that working unless they split the acreage 50/50, which the Israelis will never do. Both sides are always going to want more.

Also, remember the two-state solution was proposed and agreed at the UN in 1947. Neither side wanted it, but the Jews accepted it and declared an independent state in 1948. A day later 5 Arab nations invaded. In 1967 there was another attempt, but Jordan, not wanting to suffer the same fate as 1948 apparently tipped off Israel of the impending attack which prompted Israel to lead a pre-emptice strike of the Egyptian air bases; In that they took the Sinai as well as more Palestinian land to the North thanks to the Syrians invading from there. They gave back the Sinai and I think a large chunk of what they took from Palestine in exchange for peace - a second go at the two-state solution. That didn't last too long.

 

The reality is the Arab countries and terrorist organisations still want Israel wiped off the face of the earth and an Islamic state set up. I am not convinced it is because of the plight of the Palestinian civilians.

 

I write the above with a deep sense of melancholic despondency. At no time has humanity provided such a bounty for all, yet the casm that divides us grows ever wider, on all fronts. I remarked to my kids last night that my parents used to fear for the future of the world they had brought us into, but their fears are nothing like what I have for my children's future.

 

I don't subscribe to the colonisation or apartheid line that is often levelled against Israel, but I do agree with this:

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

The region we refer to as Palestine is part of a larger area Europeans labelled "The Levant", a word that simply implies a place to the East.

 

The genesis of the name can be found in ancient Egyptian records from the Bronze Age. The records of the Ancients (Greeks, Romans) use that name. It doesn't seem that the area was a unified political unit as was Egypt, but more of an area of individual "clan" areas. We can refer to the Torah and Bible for the names of the clans, as in The Land of the Canaan and the Land of Israel. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottoman Empire, Palestine simply remained an area where the descendants of those ancient clans lived as they had since Egyptian times. With the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, Britain and France drew lines on the map and created Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan. Britain got the benefits of the The Mandate for Palestine was a League of Nations mandate for British administration of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan.

 

The Mandate required Britain to put into effect the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" alongside the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population. The objective of the mandate over former territories of Ottoman Empire was to provide "administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone". During the Mandate, the area saw the rise of two nationalist movements: the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine ultimately produced the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine and the 1944–1948 Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.

 

Zionism  is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.

 

My comment on the whole Palestinian/Israeli situation is that once again we in Australia are being drawn into a situation where our poor knowledge of history and our Anglophilia inhibit our decision-making ability.

[nomadpete]

Thank you both for the historic background that led to the present 'troubles'.

 

We were never taught such history. Equally sadly, during my schooling years (and reinforced by a lifetime of media bites), history was never presented as being a vital early warning system, which it can be.

 

My mental 'media sound bite' summary of ME politics and violence is:-

 

Everyone who takes sides in a conflict, is escalating the conflict from local atrocities, to potential world wide atrocities.

 

Unless, of course we all take sides with the biggest bully. Really quickly.

 

Taking sides is the opposite to mediation, in any disagreement.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I tried but failed to separate islam from the secular even in my mind. I actually spent some time in Libya under Gaddafi, and I liked some aspects of the place. BUT every arrangement sentence finished with the word "inshallah " which means "god willing ". They really act as if there is nothing they can do without god being willing. They have the worst road fatalities in the world. Why wear a seatbelt if the day and time of your death has already been decided by allah?

[old man emu]

If we really wanted to point the finger of blame we could try the Romans who did a lot to greatly kick the Hebrews out of their ancestral homeland. For hundreds of years Hebrews had been taken from Judea as military prisoners as in the Babylonian exile. However Hebrews had established communities all through the Ancient World. They were doing quite well in Egypt and the idea that they were slaves is more likely to be a mistranslation of words describing people we now would call tradies. 

 

The spread of the Hebrews has its special name - diaspora "the dispersion or spread of a people from their original homeland". Think of the Vietnamese boat people as part of a Vietnamese diaspora, but the word is usually restricted to the Hebrews. Diaspora has been a common phenomenon for many peoples since antiquity and even to the present, but what is particular about the Jewish instance is the pronounced negative, religious, indeed metaphysical connotations traditionally attached to dispersion and exile (galut), two conditions which were merged. Also the Jewish diaspora has been extensively documented since Roman times.

 

Based on the pre-Roman emigration from Judea, which did not result in the loss by those people of their religion, the Hebrews would have spread through the Ancient World without the impetus of the Roman military sandal up their bums. The problem of the return to the homeland is which one, Kingdom of Israel or Kingdom of Judea do they go to?

 

Kingdoms of the Biblical Period            Current extent of modern Israel 

And what about the non-Hebrews who were probably at relative peace with the Romans since those peoples were likely to have been polytheists like the Romans, and the Romans only required secular obedience from the people they ruled. Surely the descendants of those who remained should have their rights to the land recognised. That part of the World was not a terra nullius for the League of Nations to dish out to some powerful pressure group.

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

Judea was part of the Roman Empire. Unfortunately there was a revolt against Roman rule just when Emperor Hadrian lost his lover, Antinous.  Given his deep grief he was in no mood to fart around and put the Bar Kokhba revolt down savagely,  killing over half a million Jews and scattering the survivors. 

Not a good act from an Emperor who became known as one of the "Good 5" Roman emperors. 

[red750]

For a sense of perspective, by comparison, the length of Gaza is approximately equivalent to the distance from Lilydale to Moorabbin, and at its widest point is approximately equivalent from Box Hill to Ringwood.

[red750]

My laptop died before I finished the last post.

 

This illustrates the approximate size of Gaza.

 

[facthunter]

And there was 2.3 Million living there.   Nev