Thursday, 6 December 2012

The World's Gone Crazy

I live in a Western Liberal Democracy. My mum as a woman has full human rights; I am free to practice my religion; I do not live in fear of suicide bombers or a repressive regime. I really have no reason to be fed up, to have had enough, to be frustrated but for some reason, I am. Why? Because the world's gone crazy.

I live in a world where it is debated by Human Rights Watch whether Iran's repeated calls for the destruction of Israel are illegal with the ultimate conclusion, so far, that this is just fine but the worlds' leaders and media fall over themselves to blast Israel for authorising plans to build houses in land that is rightfully theirs under Oslo.

I live in a world where the murder of anywhere between 60,000 and 120,000 (your guess is as good as mine) Syrians is completely acceptable provided they are murdered by conventional means and not through the use of chemical weapons but where Israel's fundamental right to self-defence against terrorists committed to her destruction is called into question.

I live in a world where Hamas and Fatah fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians but it is only Israel's retaliation aimed at killing terrorists and only terrorists that is deemed worthy of media attention.

I live in a world where Syrian babies are dying daily but this brought to the world's attention only through Hamas' use of pictures of the Syrian war dead as pictures from Gaza.

I live in a world where the UN debates 21 resolutions on Israel and only one on Syria, setting a on hour time limit for this resolution leaving the rest of the day to debate an Israeli one, but it is Israel's reaction to constant rocket fire that is deemed disproportionate.

I live in a world where there is an Arab state in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, UAE, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti and Comoros but it is the existence of the one Jewish State which prevents peace.

I live in a world where the Arab World refuse to recognise a (Jewish) State of Israel; sponsor, partake and glorify terror; refuse every peace deal that has ever been offered; have declared wars of destruction against Israel on more than one occasion and a Palestinian Authority that rejects negotiations in favour of unilateral moves; has no authority in half the state set aside for a future Palestinian one yet it is Israeli actions which are deemed counter productive to peace.

I live in a world where the Palestinian Leadership and Arab world harbour no desire for peace, seek the ultimate destruction of Israel and are willing to go to any lengths to achieve this goal, but the world presses Israel to do more to achieve peace.

Finally, I live in a world where all of the above is true for the simple fact that Israel is a Jewish state.



20 comments:

  1. Actually Israel has admitted that they misquoted Ahmadinejad, and that he didn't call for Israel to be 'wiped out'. Here is a link to the Deputy Israeli PM in an interview with Al-Jazeera where he admits this. You may be interested in it- http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2012/04/2012413151613293582.html
    Also I would be interested in the source of your claim that Human Rights Watch have debated whether these (alleged) claims to destroy Israel are illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do not know whether to dignify that with a response. You're really going to try the semantic argument? I struggle to believe anyone can be that stupid. I clicked on your link: "They didn't say 'we'll wipe it out', you are right, but 'it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumour, it should be removed'". If you seriously think that calling Israel a cancerous tumour that should be removed does not at the very very very very very very least subtly hint you want to wipe it out, then may I politely request you invest in a primary school education.

    I am insulted by your second request for the implication that Iran does not wish to destroy Israel. You are just plain ignorant if you believe that Iran wishes to live side by side with Israel. For your information my source is the article below:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578105691046734674.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. everything you post is anti-palestine. Indeed israel is entitled to self defense but does that justify the use of excessive force? If you were to punch me I would defend myself with reasonnable force. I would not proceed to punch you through you on the floor, strangle you, punch you some more, kick you maybe throw in a crubstopping for good measure. You're subjectivity has blinded you to the objective truth of the matter. PEOPLE ARE DYING. regardless of what means; regardless of what religion; regardless of what race.Both sides commit atrocities. step back learn some objectivity and understand and admit the atrocities that your people have commited (im not saying that palestine hasnt committed it's fair share).

    ReplyDelete
  4. This above comment wasn't my reply- but I am disappointed that you have responded so aggressively to my comment; you clearly have little interest in debating this seriously. I will leave you with the fact that Israel is the country that has repeatedly called for and threatened attacking Iran- which is illegal under international law. Not least because it is the assessment of the IAEA and the US intelligence services that Iran actually isn't attempting to build a weapon. Assuming that Iran is moving towards a nuke not only betrays a naive confidence in the rhetoric of politicians (which served us so well in Iraq, didn't it?, but also ignorance of the facts. Even the US intelligence estimates, which have every political interest in portraying Iran in the worst light possible, say that they aren't moving towards weaponisation. Israel has nuclear weapons and repeatedly refuses calls for a nuclear weapons free middle east, and refuses to join the NPT. The US also refuses to lower its weapon stockpiles in line with NPT guidelines, and supported the Indian programme when it was contravening the NPT. Surely you can see double standards? I suspect that the difference in your thought is that you assume the West is responsible and benevolent in comparison to the evil 'other'; an assumption which goes against every fact of history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I apologise, but it is impossible for me to take you seriously when you come out with such rubbish.

      Delete
    2. (To clarify, such rubbish is "Iran is not pursing nuclear weapons")

      Delete
  5. Furthermore I don't see you saying a thing when Gilad Sharon calls for Israel to 'flatten all of Gaza'. That's surely direct incitement to genocide- http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?ID=292466&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. If you read my tweets you'll see I have condemned that

      2. He's not in charge of a country, so it really means much less than when the Iranian President says these sort of things.

      Delete
  6. Perhaps all of you can go and listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pXzMz1iXypQ#!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thing is just look at it on a human level. Even if you say Hamas and various leaders in the Arab world are completely indefensible and evil, Israel's tactics kill thousands of innocent HUMAN BEINGS. That can't be justified. Its not like Israel is really defending itself because its doing a really good job of creating more terrorists and opposition which will lead to more Israeli deaths.
      You need to take a step back and realize that all the belligerents in the violence surrounding Israel and Palestine must be condemned.
      If more people in the West and Israel did that then it would be a good step towards peace

      (Different anonymous than the previous comments on this post)

      Delete
    2. I am afraid you are just mistaken. Israel's tactics prevent the deaths of innocents and always will/always have. There is no intention on the Israeli side to cause the deaths of civilians. In Pillar of Cloud, for example, the IAF aborted a mission on a terrorist in the process of launching a rocket because of the presence of civilians - that rocket went on to hit Tel Aviv. The IAF drop leaflets, take over Hamas radio to announce targets, abort missions due to civilian presence etc etc. To be blunt and straight to the point, if Israel didn't care about civilian life, it could have just completely flattened Gaza, eliminating the problem of Hamas. But it didn't, simply because it does care for civilian life, even the civilians that aren't cared for by the government they elected. Civilians will always die in warfare, it is a tragic product of war but, Sir, for you to suggest that it is Israel's tactics that kill thousands of innocents is simply absurd.

      It is the actions of Hamas that kill thousands of innocent civilians. It is the storing of rockets in hospitals and apartment blocks; it is the launching of rockets from civilian areas; it is the active use of human shields; it is the shooting of civilians that try and use Hamas bomb shelters; it is the forcing of civilians to stay in areas where the IAF drop leaflets. When you are fighting an enemy that values the death of its own people, Sir, it makes it remarkably harder to prevent civilian causalities despite your best efforts. Having said that, I find it incredible that any decent human being can look at this conflict and suggest either that it is Israel that causes the deaths of civilians or that Israel aims to kill civilians. The former is explicit in your response, Sir, and I am afraid is simply incorrect. It is Hamas and their use of human shields that cause the deaths of civilians, not Israel. I hope the latter is not implicit from your response for this is frankly absurd, as I mentioned above.

      Perhaps you could answer the following questions if you feel it is Israel's tactics that cause Palestinian deaths and/or you feel Israel is not committed to Palestinian life:

      1. Why do Hamas fire rockets from built up areas?
      2. Why do Hamas, in the knowledge that rocketing Israel will elicit (justifiably a response, whether in your eyes proportionate or not), do they not invest in bomb shelters to protect their civilians (or indeed, actively prevent their civilians from entering these bomb shelters)?
      3. Why do Hamas store rockets in hospitals?
      4. Why did Israel transfer tonnes of aid into Gaza (not only during Pillar of Cloud)?
      5. Why did Hamas attack the border crossing where Israel was readying trucks of aid to be transfered to Gaza?
      6. Why did Israel pay for the treatment of the Palestinian boy when the PA refused to stump up the cash?
      7. Why do thousands of Gazans, including the brother-in-law of the man sworn to Israel's destruction (Hamas' PM), get treated in Israeli hospitals?
      8. Why were over 100 of the Palestinians killed during Pillar of Cloud terrorists?

      Delete
    3. Continuation of previous reply:

      Please do not lecture me about the justification of Israel's actions. They are absolutely justified. When thousands of rockets rain down on your undisputed territory (i.e. Sderot, Ashdod, Tel Aviv, for example), you have a fundamental right to defend yourselves. The proportionate thing to do would be to fire indiscriminately back at Hamas, just like they fire at Israel, full in the knowledge that because they do not invest in any bomb shelters and actively move civilians to areas where they will die, you will kill loads. Instead, Israel makes every effort to prevent civilian deaths in a war where its enemy sees as much value in the death of a Palestinian as in the death of an Israel. I ask you, Sir, what exactly you would expect Israel to do in this situation? There are 4 options: eliminate Hamas whatever the costs; do nothing and expect your civilians to live under constant rocket fire; hand over all the land to Hamas whilst leading all Jews to their voluntary slaughter or target terrorists discriminately fully in the knowledge this is an impossible task but the only way of minimising civilian loss whilst still upholding your fundamental duty to defend your citizens. Most nations would choose option 1. No nation would do option 2 (or 3, although Israel is unique in its existence as a nation that has regular calls for its destruction). Israel chooses option 4 because it values civilian life.

      Sir, it is not the actions of Israel which cause Palestinian deaths, it is the actions of Hamas. When they learn to love Palestinian children more than they hate Israeli ones, we can make a move towards peace. For as long as the media condemnation of Israel because of a dead Palestinian baby (the stroller of which was used to fire a rocket) outweighs the life of that Palestinian baby, there will never be peace. You are naive to suggest otherwise.

      I am not going to sit here and suggest that Israel is whiter than white when it comes to advancing peace, but I refuse to accept that it is the barrier to peace in anyway. Because, of course you could sit there and argue until the cows come home that settlements prevent a viable Palestinian state or Israel is complicit in war crimes etc etc but you would be missing the fundamental point about this conflict and that is that Palestinian leaders fundamentally do not want peace. Israel could turn around and offer Abbas all of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza but this would not result in peace. Peace, for Palestinian leaders, only comes when Israel is destroyed and the Jews are annihilated. Sure Abbas aims to do it by acquiring the West Bank, under the veneer of a two state solution and peace but really all he really wants is to help launch another war of destruction and hate against Israel and the Jewish People, from this land much like in 1967. If the Arab world wanted a(nother) Palestinian state, they would have either a) accepted one of the many peace deals offered starting with the Peel Declaration, then the first partition plan going right up until the most recent negotiations or b) established one when they had control of the West Bank and Gaza in 1948(-1967) rather than launching wars aimed to destroy Israel. They always felt they could have all of the land. They are wrong. So, Sir, please do not lecture me about Israel killing civilians or "good steps towards peace". There will never be peace in this region because Israel has no partner for peace. The Arab World is committed to the eventual destruction of Israel, not peace and is willing to see every last Palestinian child die for this cause. Remember, 'Free Palestine' is code for 'kill the Jews'

      (Same Raphael Cous Cous Levy as all previous comments on this post ;-))

      Delete
    4. Its Israel's actions that have caused its calls for destruction from the arab world. The first arab-israeli war was a panicked response to Zionist aggressive expansion and since then Israel's tactics have created more terrorists.
      I think what Hamas do is awful and I don't defend any of the arab states' actions in this but ultimately that doesn't give Israel justification for what they do.
      There isn't a history anti-semitism in the arab world and Islam especially doesn't preach it. Arab attacks on Israel, however abhorrent are a response to Israel's actions. Israel may be defending themselves on the short term but in the long term they just radicalize more palestinians and create greater animosity between them and the rest of the world

      Delete
    5. I find it absurd that you can claim that. Are we suggesting that the Arab world which currently has Syria slaughtering its civilians; Saudi Arabia oppressing virtually everyone; Iran hanging children; Morsi granting himself Hitler style presidential powers; Turkey oppressing its Kurdish minority etc etc etc etc is a peaceful world? Really? It is simply ludicrous that you would suggest such a thing - In 1947, the Jews went about establishing a Jewish State and accepted the partition plan. The Arabs rejected it, believing they could get it all. They failed and then occupied the land they wish to establish a Palestinian state in today - why did they not just do it back in 1949 after they lost the war? Because there aim is not a two state solution, it is the destruction of Israel.

      I am sure Israel is gutted that you don't think it is justified in defending its citizens. I shall pass on the message and let Bibi know that it is your opinion that we should, like we did in Nazi Germany, sit around whilst we get slaughtered by inhumane terrorists hell bent on our destruction.

      I do not know the truth of that first statement, but I struggle to believe it considering the long line of Arab empires that have attempted to destroy the Jews. Furthermore, you are simply wrong to state that Arab attacks on Israel are in response to Israel actions. Granted they can be framed as such, but Arab attacks on Israel would occur regardless - they are aimed at destroying Israel. It is naive to argue otherwise and, frankly, it is simply incorrect. The Arab world has no interest in peace with Israel, only the destruction of Israel. If they wanted peace, they need only put down they weapons and return to the negotiating table where we will welcome them with open arms as partners in peace. Unfortunately, no Arab state wants peace with Israel. And why should it? No one demands of them to desire peace and, frankly, it suits them better to blame all their problems on Israel.

      EVEN IF we accept everything that you say, that it is Israel's actions that cause the hatred of Jews which goes back centuries; that it is Israel's actions that cause relentless terrorist attacks against her civilians etc etc, perhaps you can suggest an answer to why the Arab World hasn't considered making peace? If they are the victims in this conflict, if it is they who are suffering as a result of Israeli action (rather than the Arab World's refusal to negotiate with Israel, refusal to acknowledge the existence of Israel, refusal to accept any peace deal with Israel and declarations of war against Israel) then why do not they seek to end the suffering through peace? Surely, if they are only reacting to Israel's actions and actually seek peace with Israel, they would have made an effort to negotiate rather than declare war? I struggle to see how you can suggest that it is Israeli action which harbours hate and not Arab action which does so. After all, Israel never invaded every Arab Nation with the intention of destroying them, killing every Arab and creating another Jewish State. No, that was the Arab world trying and failing to destroy Israel.

      Delete
  7. Again you just attack the actions of the arab world and use it as justification for what Israel does. I have made it clear I'm not defending the arab world or Islamist terrorists and especially not Iran or Syria.
    and I haven't said the hatred of Jews is caused by Israel's actions, I said hatred of Israel is caused by Israel's actions. Hamas are attacking the state of Israel not the Jewish people. They are not the same thing and the people who say they are are espousing a form of ethnic nationalism that history has shown to be one of the most destructive ideas of modern times.
    Its very well for Israel to say the arabs should have accepted a peace deal in the 40s but any deal would have involved a huge amount of Palestinian land being lost. whatever way you spin it any compromise will involve Israel retaining huge amounts of land that Palestinian families have had their homes on for centuries. Again I'm not defending any violence on behalf of the arabs but I think its important to recognise the inherently unfair situation that the arabs are expecting to negotiate in.

    Anyway you fail to respond to my argument that Israel's actions create more hatred for it and make it the target of more terrorism. Benjamin Netanyahu might be winning votes by killing palestinians but he's not protecting his citizens on the long term

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hamas are attacking the state of Israel, not the Jewish People".

      I'm afraid you're just wrong. Hamas is attacking the Jews, it makes that very very clear.

      That's frankly absurd. Firstly, the "but Palestinians lived there" argument is simply not got any weight - 1. Jews lived there too AND 2. Jews were expelled from that land way before Arabs ever lived there. Secondly, a Jewish state is a necessity given the persecution Jews faced not only during Nazi Germany, but throughout history when there was no Jewish state to protect the rights of Jews. Never again shall we stand defenceless. Your argument that "it involved a huge amount of Palestinian Land being lost" is false - 4/5+1/2 of the final 1/5 was remaining Palestinian land under the UN partition plan, so really a tiny amount of land would be false. More importantly, however, to suggest that there was an unfair situation they were NEGOTIATING in, is frankly ridiculous. Not only did they do no negotiating, they just rejected the offer, they rejected the offer because they thought they could gain all the land. That was why they rejected it, not because they deemed it unfair, but because they thought they could destroy Israel. So to suggest they deemed it unfair or it was an unfair situation misses the point - a Jewish state is a necessity but one that Arab countries, who are more than happy to persecute Jews and expel them, reject in its entirety, regardless of Palestinian (or other) land lost. They do not care about the Palestinians, as shown by Syria's bombing of a refugee camp and many other thing I highlight in a previous article.

      I reject that notion, I feel I have responded, but for the sake of clarity I will make my response evident. It has 2 prongs:

      1. I reject the notion that Israel could lessen hatred for it. Your argument implies that leaders such as those of Hamas and Iran are rational people who are more than happy to live in existence alongside a Jewish State of Israel. This is naive at best - a hatred of Jews goes far deeper than the state of Israel - Arab states and leaders negotiated with Hitler on the murder of Jews before Israel was even established. So, even if we accept your premise that Israel's actions harbour hatred, the only way for Israel to not be hated or be the target of terrorist attacks is for Israel not to exist. It is independent of Israel's actions that Israel is hated.

      2. Secondly, even though I do argue that Israel's actions and hatred of Israel are independent, I do not think Israel does act in a way to create more hatred of it. Quite the contrary - is a country who treats the brother in law of a man sworn to its destruction on looking for hate? Is a country which treats a Palestinian boy when the authority supposed to protect his rights (the PA) refuses to pay for the treatment looking for hate? Is a country which uses targeted killing, aborting missions to strike to avoid civilians dying looking for hate? Or is it actually a country which, no matter what it does, will be hated? You tell Hamas that Israel treated a Palestinian Child the PA refused to treat, they will probably laugh in your face before killing you for good measure. I am offended that you would suggest Israel *indiscriminately* kills Palestinians. This is simply not true. Israel defends its civilians which, admittedly, results in deaths. Forgive Israel for fighting an enemy that uses human shields and does not allow them into bomb shelters, for example.

      To summarise, even if we accept your premise that Israel's actions create hatred for it and make it the target for more terrorism, you're making a false causal link between hatred for Israel and Israel's actions in that no matter what Israel does, it will be hated and the target of terrorism - it is naive to suggest otherwise. Having said that, I reject your premise but then the former argument is stronger because even if you are correct, you happen to be wrong. Lovely.

      Delete
    2. Merry Christmas
      I've enjoyed our discussions anyway and I concede that I don't have any more effective points to make without just repeating what I've said before

      Delete
  8. Hope you had a Merry Christmas (didn't check my blog over Xmas and New Year) and a Happy New Year!

    ReplyDelete

Please refrain from abusive comments.