UN Security Council resolution against Israel

[Martyn Sadler]

You are right that Israel gets far more criticism than other nations that do worse but two wrongs don't make a right.  For example, for Russia to vote against Israel in the Security Council given their recent Ukraine and Syria actions is hypocrisy in the extreme.  Unfortunately for Israel, they have to be cleaner than clean in their ethics to stop the persistent political sniping and they're not even trying to play ethically.

 

Any claim to ethical behaviour can always be taken apart by individual examples that are clearly unethical.

 

Nonetheless, as this article claims, last year Israeli hospitals treated 180,000 Palestinian citizens. That doesn't sound unethical to me, although the article is taken from a strongly pro-Israeli website.

 

Even some Hamas leaders have been treated and cured in Israeli hospitals.

 

I think the article illustrates my point that, left to themselves, the Israelis and Palestinians would have a much better chance of reaching an accord.

[Saintslass]

I don't get that.  Why do we need to build bridges with them?  Israel is no friend of the UK and treat us as a useful fool more than anything else.  I would support interventionist military assistance to save them from any major military assault but that's about it, their attitudes and actions are vile and deserve condemnation.  You'd think the Israeli people would have learned from their own past that oppressively treating another group of people is simply not acceptable.

They are our allies in a troubled region and as such we need to build bridges after being front and centre of writing up the UN resolution.  That was perceived by Israel as a betrayal of an ally and friend. 

 

If you believe that Israel is oppressing another people without question, as you appear to do, then that is your prerogative.  But as the PM's criticism of Kerry's speech said, the situation is far more complex than that.  The Palestinians, as with many others in the region, want to see Israel gone and they fire rockets over into Israeli territory on a regular basis.  Those incidents rarely make the UK news because the UK media a pro-Palestine regardless of the ongoing terrorism that has been a feature of their attitude towards Israel since its inception.

 

I am pro-Israeli and have absolutely no problem admitting that. As a nation state they are not perfect but nor is any other nation state.  They are an ally of the UK and the West generally, as was clearly evidenced in such times as the first Gulf War.  Granted, because they are effectively alone in the region they probably need their allies more than their allies presently need them, which is possibly why there was such a strong reaction to the latest UN resolution (which I also believe shows a hint of anti-Semitism in its regularity of appearance towards Israel while never appearing towards Russia, for example, even though Russia are presently illegally occupying part of the Ukraine).

 

Kerry is useless on the international stage.  So far, everything he has attempted has failed and in fact he has left the US looking weak and incompetent.  We don't look much better to be fair but that's probably because Cameron was as nebulous a being as Obama.

[westlondonfan]

Any claim to ethical behaviour can always be taken apart by individual examples that are clearly unethical.

 

Nonetheless, as this article claims, last year Israeli hospitals treated 180,000 Palestinian citizens. That doesn't sound unethical to me, although the article is taken from a strongly pro-Israeli website.

 

Even some Hamas leaders have been treated and cured in Israeli hospitals.

 

I think the article illustrates my point that, left to themselves, the Israelis and Palestinians would have a much better chance of reaching an accord.

To be fair they have also assinated some Hamas leaders in third countries too.

[Niels]

Yes that is another point in their favour.

Leaders who lived in wealth in other nations to plan terror attacks whilst their own people sufferred in poverty and were used as human shields.

[westlondonfan]

Yes that is another point in their favour.

Leaders who lived in wealth in other nations to plan terror attacks whilst their own people sufferred in poverty and were used as human shields.

So you support targeted assassinations of leaders of peoples who are living in poverty ?

[Niels]

I did say leaders who "Plan terror attacks".

I am slightly confused as your paraphrasing of my comment bears no accuracy to what I actually said. I mean this genuinely - maybe you didnt read all of the comment or didnt understand, which is fine. It is difficult to reply though as I dont want to cause embarrassment.

[Martyn Sadler]

To be fair they have also assinated some Hamas leaders in third countries too.

 

If you live by the sword you'll probably die by the sword.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Hate to see what would of happened in Northern Ireland if we had used similar tactics.

[Farmduck]

Howard Jacobsen's book "when will Jews be forgiven the Holocaust" is a novel about your last point Craig.

He writes in the Guardian so he is an acceptable source to quote on here.

It's not a novel. It's an essay based on two glaringly false premises:

 

- "Holocaust guilt" is transmuted by the sufferer into anti-semitism against the victims

- Criticism of Israel = anti-semitism = anti-Zionism = anti-semitism

 

Jacobsen isn't a psychologist but he bases his theory of 2 mental conditions not on case studies of individuals but on two quotes from other non-psychologists. An English academic, John Gray, that ‘It has long been known that those who perform great acts of kindness are rarely forgiven. The same is true of those who suffer irreparable wrongs. When will Jews be forgiven the Holocaust?’ and a line from Roman historian Tacitus, “It is part of human life, to hate the man you have hurt.”

 

If Jacobsen's first premise was true, it would explain criticism of Israel coming from Germans and Austrians aged 85 and over, but doesn't explain the other 99% nor does it prove any nexus between "Holocaust Guilt" and anti-semitism. No case studies of individuals are cited to support the notion.

 

Your introduction of this reference should be seen for what it is: the lowest form of fallacy, which I call Reductio ad Holocaustum. This fallacy is very simple: Jews and Israel can never be criticised for anything because Holocaust. It is based entirely on the racist principle that Gentiles didn't do enough to prevent or stop the Holocaust. The 15-20 million Gentiles who died in the war against Hitler were "not enough."

 

This argument is so transparently despicable that it should never be tolerated by anyone.

[JohnM]

Netanyahu is not Israel just as Trump is not America. However, whatever the different factions within Israel, they all seem to come together to act against anything perceived by them as against the interests of the country, whether real or imagined.

Sure, the country is democratic but not above illegal acts on the territory of other countries: for exsmple https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

Our allies? In the end, only if it serves Israel's own ends.

[Niels]

It's not a novel. It's an essay based on two glaringly false premises:

- "Holocaust guilt" is transmuted by the sufferer into anti-semitism against the victims

- Criticism of Israel = anti-semitism = anti-Zionism = anti-semitism

Jacobsen isn't a psychologist but he bases his theory of 2 mental conditions not on case studies of individuals but on two quotes from other non-psychologists. An English academic, John Gray, that ‘It has long been known that those who perform great acts of kindness are rarely forgiven. The same is true of those who suffer irreparable wrongs. When will Jews be forgiven the Holocaust?’ and a line from Roman historian Tacitus, “It is part of human life, to hate the man you have hurt.”

If Jacobsen's first premise was true, it would explain criticism of Israel coming from Germans and Austrians aged 85 and over, but doesn't explain the other 99% nor does it prove any nexus between "Holocaust Guilt" and anti-semitism. No case studies of individuals are cited to support the notion.

Your introduction of this reference should be seen for what it is: the lowest form of fallacy, which I call Reductio ad Holocaustum. This fallacy is very simple: Jews and Israel can never be criticised for anything because Holocaust. It is based entirely on the racist principle that Gentiles didn't do enough to prevent or stop the Holocaust. The 15-20 million Gentiles who died in the war against Hitler were "not enough."

This argument is so transparently despicable that it should never be tolerated by anyone.

The thread isn't a book review!

[westlondonfan]

The thread isn't a book review!

You referred to the book. It appears that you have never actually read it though so Farmduck's reply was very interesting.

It was difficult to suggest that though because I don't want to cause embarrassment!

[Niels]

Your post reminds me of The 2 Ronnies Sketch where the contestant's chosen subject is to answer the question asked previously to the current one!

[Martyn Sadler]

Netanyahu is not Israel just as Trump is not America. However, whatever the different factions within Israel, they all seem to come together to act against anything perceived by them as against the interests of the country, whether real or imagined.

Sure, the country is democratic but not above illegal acts on the territory of other countries: for exsmple https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

Our allies? In the end, only if it serves Israel's own ends.

 

No one is suggesting that Israel is a bastion of liberalism without any faults.

 

But then again, it's hard to imagine how a small country surrounded by other countries that would like to eliminate it is as liberal as it apparently is in many ways.

 

It's not surprising, though, that perceived betrayal in such circumstances is regarded as the most heinous crime.

[Saintslass]

So you support targeted assassinations of leaders of peoples who are living in poverty ?

There are people living in poverty in every nation in the world.  I'd say Zimbabwe is a good place to start on that point.  But I'm not sure what your point was?

[Maximus Decimus]

It's nothing to do with being "forgiven" but more about them recognising that humanity does not come at the end of persecution. I have the same criticisms of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, even the recent US treatment of native Americans and any other country that acts in a morally reprehensible way towards large groups of people.

I also find it increasingly pathetic and worthy of contempt that people cannot criticise Israel without being painted as anti-semitic. As far as I'm concerned, only the most blitheringly dim of moronic individuals could genuinely confuse the two meaning everyone else is just using it to make a political point that suits their narrow prejudices.

Criticism of Israel is of course not anti-semitic. They are pretty much universally condemned for their settlement building and rightly so.

However, you'd have to be blind to see that criticism of Zionism doesn't go further than simply criticism of Israeli policies. Increasing use of phrases like the 'zionist-led media' and inferences that zionists control money and power are basically anti-semitism in disguise.

One of the big problems with any Israeli/Palestinian discussion is that there is little balance and both sides are very polarised. Any debate I've heard has been depressing. The pro-Israeli advocates seem to offer zero criticism and will defend obvious ills like the settlements and excessive use of force and you even hear religious arguments about how the land is their right.

However the anti-Israeli advocates often seem naive and blind to the obvious challenges Israel has. A two-state solution is great but can anyone say with any degree of certainty that a full Palestinian state wouldn't eventually try to wipe Israel off the map?

My thoughts are that Israel exists whether we like how they were settled or not, much like the protestants in Northern Ireland. Any position that refuses to accept this (and I think many anti-Israelis fundamentally don't) is not going to get anywhere.

[Bob8]

The thread isn't a book review!

 

Well done.  Very clever.  This thread is a discussion.  You made a point, he addressed it and you obfuscated.

[Maximus Decimus]

Just for a bit of balance there have been more UN and Human Rights resolutions against Israel in 2016 than North Korea, Iran, Syria and South Sudan combined.

[Bob8]

Just for a bit of balance there have been more UN and Human Rights resolutions against Israel in 2016 than North Korea, Iran, Syria and South Sudan combined.

This is strange.

 

I can sympathise with the Israeli position.  There issues are existential.  They will be a scapegoat for regimes in the area and being nice would not alter that.  They have to be at full alertness and demonstrate strength.

 

Clearly, there are many worse regimes.  North Korea and South Sudan are indeed good examples.  We certainly do not fund them and have full diplomatic relations.  When we refer to a Western Government being anti-Israeli, it tends to mean less supportive.  The criticism of Israel is as one friendly nation to another.  The comparison to Northern Ireland is obviously a weak one, but as you cite it - many allied nations were very critical of Britain in Northern Ireland - it was not the same as being inherently anti-British.

[Maximus Decimus]

This is strange.

I can sympathise with the Israeli position. There issues are existential. They will be a scapegoat for regimes in the area and being nice would not alter that. They have to be at full alertness and demonstrate strength.

Clearly, there are many worse regimes. North Korea and South Sudan are indeed good examples. We certainly do not fund them and have full diplomatic relations. When we refer to a Western Government being anti-Israeli, it tends to mean less supportive. The criticism of Israel is as one friendly nation to another. The comparison to Northern Ireland is obviously a weak one, but as you cite it - many allied nations were very critical of Britain in Northern Ireland - it was not the same as being inherently anti-British.

The Northern Irish comparison is not weak in that it involved outside settlement (and eventual usurption) of a native population within relatively recent history.

They are comparable in that regardless of the politics of the day, there are those who will refuse to ever truly accept their legitimate right to live there.

In fact if you go to Northern Ireland you might be surprised to find that the Unionists will often fly Israeli flags and the Nationalists are very pro-Palestinian. Just this year the town my wife is from had a demonstration where people lay across the road blocking traffic protesting about Israeli actions.

[Niels]

Well done. Very clever. This thread is a discussion. You made a point, he addressed it and you obfuscated.

Obfuscated is a good word - I had to look it up - but I don't think it is applicable here.

I didn't make a point. I made a reference to a book I thought Craig might find useful.

Farm duck then gave his review or opinion about the book which he seemed to dislike. I then made a light hearted comment to diffuse the situation.

If I can add a bit of self deprecating humour then West London RL fan was correct - I havent read the book.

I just don't want to go off thread or make the mods job difficult so happy to leave it be (if people who have read the book and want to discuss it then they can always make a new thread)

Cheers and happy new year !

[Bob8]

The Northern Irish comparison is not weak in that it involved outside settlement (and eventual usurption) of a native population within relatively recent history.

They are comparable in that regardless of the politics of the day, there are those who will refuse to ever truly accept their legitimate right to live there.

In fact if you go to Northern Ireland you might be surprised to find that the Unionists will often fly Israeli flags and the Nationalists are very pro-Palestinian. Just this year the town my wife is from had a demonstration where people lay across the road blocking traffic protesting about Israeli actions.

There are the same dynamics are work, I am have heard about the flags.  I was just wary of going down the road of making direct comparisons, I did not mean to reject your comparison (you know Northern Ireland and I do not) - merely I did not want to make a comparison between two situations I understand badly and to acknowledge there are big differences. i.e. It's not you, it's me.

[Niels]

If it is ok to join the discussion I would say that the initial motivation is the main difference. Israelis settled there as a place of refuge after the Holocaust.

[Bedford Roughyed]

In fact if you go to Northern Ireland you might be surprised to find that the Unionists will often fly Israeli flags and the Nationalists are very pro-Palestinian. Just this year the town my wife is from had a demonstration where people lay across the road blocking traffic protesting about Israeli actions.

 

 

Someone was telling about the flags the other day.  As a kid he thought the Palestinian flag meant celtic and the Israeli flag was an alternative for rangers!

[Guest]

If it is ok to join the discussion I would say that the initial motivation is the main difference. Israelis settled there as a place of refuge after the Holocaust.

The only problem with that is that other people already lived there and these people and their children and children's children are now refugees.