Please, trace the conversation back.

It's superficially similar - which is why it was used - but only if you choose to ignore important cultural and legal differences between the two situations.

I have.
You seem to be saying that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are not Israeli settlements.
That is what I say is incorrect.

Have I misinterpreted what you said?

Carry on with differences please ...

I am referring specifically to the map which i quoted, which used Israeli and Jewish as synonyms. They clealry couldnt not have been Israeli settlements, because the reason they are labelled Jewish, and not Isreali is because at the time, the state of Israel did not exist.

I said, that I didn’t think that specific map was helpful, or useful, or right, to equate a jewish settlement with the state of Israell, especially as there couldn’t possibly be a link between the two as the state of Israel didn’t exist at the time. I went on to say you could probably produce a similar one showing the growth of islam in the UK, but I probably wouldn’t like the people who would choose to do that nor there reasons for doing so.

Okey Dokey...

For a start, the history of the colonisation of North America and what happen to the indigenous peoples is a lot more complex and nuanced than you and Mugwump appear to think. [url=http://www.shmoop.com/native-american-history/This site[/url provides some interesting reading.

Next up, the native American tribes had no concept of soldiers and civilians. All members of an enemy tribe were legitimate targets during hostilities, and hence all 'white' settlers were legitimate targets during the periods of conflict between them.

Further, the level of coordination between war bands was frequently very loose indeed and if some overstepped the mark by the standards of the day it would rarely have been the result of a deliberate policy by whatever leadership was in force at the time.

Now the blindingly obvious one...

Hamas and Israel are operating, at least notionally, within the framework of International Law. This defines what we, globally, now deem acceptable or not. Attacks against civilian targets are not acceptable. The same did not apply during the time of the early settlement of North America.

That's all I have time for at the moment.

Anyone opened a book yet on the next time Israel will decide it's necessary to murder a few children? The next election after this coming one, perhaps? After all, it's usually just before an election.

I hope CORNISH doesn't see this as he'll go mad.

According to the BBC news today, Israel are observing the ceasefire while 20 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza, if one of these lands on a primary school, it could be a lot of dead kids. Fortunately they won't be Arab kids, just Jews.

This map?



Far from conflating Jewish and Israeli land, it seems pretty clear to me: prior to the creation of the state of Israel, Jewish occupied land is labeled as such. Follwing the creation of the state of Israel, Israeli occupied and controlled land is labeled as such. It may have helped if they had produced a map for each year since 1946 but that's hardly practical is it

Im not sure what the relevance of what was Jewish land, to what is Israel is relevant. It gives the impression that a comparison between 'Jewish land'(and im not actually sure what this means in practice here? Majority Jew? only Jew? Jewish owned? What does Palestinian land mean in relation here aswell?) in 1946 and the state of Israel in 2000 is the growth of 'Jewish land' or a growth of Isreal which isnt true, and is misleading. It treats two different things as the same thing.

I also think that including the UN partition plan and 1947-67 is misleading aswell, Firstly because the UN partition plan wasnt actual reality, it was a partition plan, not what was actually true in 1947, secondly because 1947-67 doesnt make sense really, is it just 1967? the average over this period? its strange to choose such a long timeframe,

Really......?!

The third map is a 1967 snapshot.
Comparison with the fourth map shows the extent of the Israeli settlements across the West Bbank that I have been talking about.
The 1967 borders are important because they have been, for several decades now, the baseline for talks for the two-state solution.
My interpretation of events of the last few decades is that, regardless of what they say, Israel does not want a two-state solution, preferring rather to have a policy of constant encroachment across the West Bank and a squeezing of Gaza towards some kind of elimination, possibly by adoption into Egypt, aiming towards a non-existence of Palestine as any kind of state.

Lets not forget though that Israel immediately set about rounding up and arresting dozens of people at the start of the ceasefire. Add to that the shooting and wounding of 6 palestinians since the start of the ceasfire. Then to start Friday off they shoot and kill a 23 yr old. Shot in the head just to make sure. Are the Israelis really abiding by the ceasefire?
Isn't this exactly what the Palestinians complain about day in day out?

And I don’t doubt that a snapshot at two times showing the size of state of Israel is a valid comparison. I have yet to see the relevance of ‘jewish land’ and ‘something that may have happened but didn’t really’ have to that,

I also think there is a clear reason that map is labelled as 1947-67, and not just 1967, or more usefully, pre-’67 war, I also think that labelling those areas as Palestinian, rather than Egyption, Jordanian and Syrian which they were, is also misleading. I also think it is misleading to compare pre ’67 war and 2000, which ignores Isreal forcibly evacuating its own citizens in 2005.


For no other reason than propaganda purposes that Map invents two countries that didnt exist, jewishland and palestine, ignore three which did, Egypt, Syria and Jordan, has a representation of something which isnt reality, and deliberately chooses two dates to exagerrate the issue. Im not sure why this is useful, or helpful to anyone.

I assume that, if someone waltzed into your home, threw you out of it and said that, on the basis of some ancient fairy tale, it was no longer yours, you'd be entirely happy: yes?

Is it also safe to assume that, if you were blockaded into your town, with restrictions not simply on movement, but on being able to get basic goods, you'd simply roll over and let yourself be f*cked: yes?

If you answer 'no' to one or both of these question, why do you expect Palestinians to behave differently than you'd behave?

What those maps do is to show, quite clearly, that the Palestinian people have been shoved off their land and out of their homes.

Very progressive of you to support this and, by default, a form of right-wing, racist, nationalist neo-fascism that inflicts a form of apartheid on a group of people.

Did you also believe that black South Africans should just have bent over and taken it from behind and, like Margaret Thatcher, that the ANC and Nelson Mandela were a bunch of terrorists?

Except they dont, they show a hell of a lot of nonsense and conflate many things to present one side of a story. It doesnt help anything or anyone.

I have little sympathy for terrorists. That includes the Isreali government as well as hamas. It does the Palestinian cause no good to make things up about the situation. Generally people aren’t stupid enough for it. And those that are, then begin to distrust the information they are being given when they learn about things like the nearly 1m Jewish refugees forced out of their homes, who lost everything, sneaking across borders with nothing more than what they were wearing when they were forced out of Arab nations. It makes it easier to hide a form of right-wing, racist, nationalist neo-fascism that inflicts a form of apartheid on a group of people, when it is done in response to terrorists lobbing rockets indiscriminately or planting bombs on civilian buses and running away, or walking into restaurants and murdering people. Its hard to see a brave Palestinian resistance when they use such cowardly, abhorrent tactics.

And just to head off the standard response, no it doesn’t justify some of what the Israeli government do, but what the Israeli government do doesn’t justify Hamas’ actions either.


Madiba's mission [iDuring my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die[/i

Hamas charter article 8 [iAllah is its goal, the Prophet is the model, the Qur'an its constitution, jihad its path, and death for the sake of Allah its most sublime belief[/i
Article 13 [iThere is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer[/i [i"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." [/i [iThere is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."[/i

I would counter that it is very progressive of you to support a movement whose thoughts on women [iare Woman in the home of the fighting family, whether she is a mother or a sister, plays the most important role in looking after the family, rearing the children and embuing them with moral values and thoughts derived from Islam. She has to teach them to perform the religious duties in preparation for the role of fighting awaiting them. That is why it is necessary to pay great attention to schools and the curriculum followed in educating Moslem girls, so that they would grow up to be good mothers, aware of their role in the battle of liberation. [/i

Just seen a video on a well known file sharing website by Gerald Kaufman ( who is Jewish ) having a right go at the Israeli Government for what has gone on since this latest flare up has gone off. He wasn't happy with one of the Israeli army chiefs as well who said that 500 of the dead are terrorists and likening it to the Nazis. I bet Mr. Kaufman gets some stick for that.

I'd be highly pi$$ed off, yes. I'd like to think I wouldn't start killing random civilians though.

Wouldn't we all. But fast forward 60 years; you've still had no satisfaction through formal methods. The courts have made judgements – but these have been ignored. Entire nations actually put all the blame on you.

And then, to cap it all, you're stuck in prison – and when you actually respond, you're still being blamed.

And that's without pointing out that those imprisoning you have killed vastly more – and I mean "vastly" – than you have. Including children and other innocent civilians, numbered in the thousands – and it's still you that's to blame.

Really, the propaganda has worked well, hasn't it?

Strange, isn't it, that when moderates are humiliated, people will turn to more radical leaders?

Who'd a thunk that, eh?

You could be mistaken for imagining that, say, the lessons of Iran had been learned. No?

But well done for continuing to fall for the Israeli propaganda machine. Still, at least those Israelis are mostly white and not a bunch of sand n*gger rag heads, eh?

The Zionist terrorists never poisoned wells, shot people in the back of the head, drove people from their homes etc etc. And if they did, in your book that's all hunky dory.

Because that's what you're saying is acceptable. Well done.

That makes it ok for them to launch indiscriminately at civilian populations. Is a Jewish child any more likely to understand the history of the area than an Arab child. Your post seemed to only be concerned about Arab children, when most people are concerned about innocents on both sides. Whether you like it or not, Israel is going nowhere and until both sides can sit down and talk instead of lobbing rockets at each other, deaths of those who are not in control will happen. What do you think would happen if the Palestinians got hold of any serious weaponry such as a dirty bomb, or worse a nuke, I doubt they would use it as a bargaining chip, they would use it without hesitation. Israel has a right to exist, which certain factions in the region will not accept and they also have a right to defend themselves against attacks, it just happens that they have a more sophisticated nal and better trained military personnel which makes losses on the Palastinian side more likely.

Most outsiders want a two state solution in the region, but I would hazard a guess that if by some miracle this was achieved the radicals on the Arab side would still carry on attacking Israel until they wiped everyone out.

As long as both side indoctrinate their children in the mistakes of the past, the future will be full of the blood of both sides

You think that the condemnation of taking innocent civilian lives is all down to propaganda? Really? Or that lives can be measured in some king of balance and it's OK to kill innocent people as long as the other side have killed more? You're better than that, surely?

Killing civilians is wrong. I don't care how righteous the cause is - and there can be little argument that Palestinians have a righteous cause - once you start targeting civilians you've crossed the line.

What I find - let's say disappointing to be polite - is people who will happily condemn attacks on civilians by one side but ignore the same tactics when used by another. Or, say, condemn civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan but say nothing when Hamas kill Israeli civilians.

If killing civilians is wrong then it's wrong at all times and in all places. Simple.