What should the EU's position be on the new escalation in Palestine?

[emzie]

Seriously, EU has not a single reason to support Palestinians. They're outsiders, terrorist-supporters (as they demonstrated by voting for Hamas in free and fair elections monitored by EU observers) and biggest receivers of EU aid, which ends in hands of terrorists like Arafat.

EU is in fact paying a ransom to people who wouldn't give a damn if whole EU was obliterated.

But it's so trendy. My Support Palestine bumpersticker makes all the inroads into yuppie circles I need!

 

[Winner]

Now I noticed how european the poll in this thread is: Europeans, as usual, agree, that EU should play a much more important role in the world, they just can't agree on what it should do

 

[Winner]

But it's so trendy. My Support Palestine bumpersticker makes all the inroads into yuppie circles I need!

That's it. I guess it is caused partly by the European anti-American sentiment (something like "Americans support Israel so we have to support... who is against Israel?") and partly by the fact that Europe is generally more on the left than America. Leftists tend to use other parts of their bodies instead of brain when thinking about international politics

 

[Hotpoint]

That's it. I guess it is caused partly by the European anti-American sentiment (something like "Americans support Israel so we have to support... who is against Israel?") and partly by the fact that Europe is generally more on the left than America. Leftists tend to use other parts of their bodies instead of brain when thinking about international politics

For the most part my criticism of Israel is not based on some "leftist" bleeding-heart support of the poor Palestinians, but rather the fact that Israel has settlers in, and is building a wall across, land which they seized by force of arms in 1967.

Either conquering someone elses land and moving your own people into it is wrong or it isn't. Allowing a precedent to be set that you can get away with it would be so dangerous to international order that it should not be countenanced.

The West roundly criticises the Peoples Republic of China for taking Tibet militarily and subsequently settling people there. The only problem is if you don't criticise Israel for doing basically the same thing then you are being a hypocrite. The moral (and legal) high ground is worth having.

 

[Winner]

For the most part my criticism of Israel is not based on some "leftist" bleeding-heart support of the poor Palestinians, but rather the fact that Israel has settlers in, and is building a wall across, land which they seized by force of arms in 1967.

Either conquering someone elses land and moving your own people into it is wrong or it isn't. Allowing a precedent to be set that you can get away with it would be so dangerous to international order that it should not be countenanced.

The West roundly criticises the Peoples Republic of China for taking Tibet militarily and subsequently settling people there. The only problem is if you don't criticise Israel for doing basically the same thing then you are being a hypocrite. The moral (and legal) high ground is worth having.

I think it is very important to understand the context of this situation. China attacked Tibet without provocation, simply because the communists wanted to reintegrate it into their empire. It was outright agression, so the West is generally right in its criticism.

On the other hand, seizure of "palestinian" territories was a result of defensive war waged by Israel to save its very existence.

When two states do "basically the same thing", it doesn't mean both of them are right or wrong.

 

[Hotpoint]

I think it is very important to understand the context of this situation. China attacked Tibet without provocation, simply because the communists wanted to reintegrate it into their empire. It was outright agression, so the West is generally right in its criticism.

On the other hand, seizure of "palestinian" territories was a result of defensive war waged by Israel to save its very existence.

When two states do "basically the same thing", it doesn't mean both of them are right or wrong.

You miss the point I'm afraid. If Israel had kept the occupied territories as a buffer against future aggression your argument would have held some water. However by allowing settlement of the area that argument lost validity.

If you want a historical parallel, Rome often justified it's wars against the Gallic Tribes by saying they were pre-emptive defensive operations (citing reasonably they were in responce to the sack of Rome by the Gauls in 387BC). The problem is that when you start colonising the areas you can't claim defence any more... that's Empire.

Remember also that the territories seized in 1967 weren't Palestinian anyway. The Gaza strip was Egyptian, the Golan was Syrian and the West Bank was part of Jordan.

 

[EdwardTking]

We should do nothing for the either side, let them kill each other all they want.

I would suggest we kept out of it and left this sort of thing up to the UN.

I am from the EU.

I think that the EU should just keep building wind turbines and wave power, and improving its agricultural land, and keep well out of this disaster.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Trade embargo on Israel.

I fully agree, treat it as the rogue state it is.

 

[luiz]

Either conquering someone elses land and moving your own people into it is wrong or it isn't. Allowing a precedent to be set that you can get away with it would be so dangerous to international order that it should not be countenanced.

The Anglo-Saxons got away with it in their conquest of England. The English-Americans got away with it in the conquest of the US. The Spanish and Portuguese got away with it in the conquest of Latin America.
And China did get away with the conquest of Tibet.

Fact is we are all living in conquered land. It is certainly wrong to kick a people out and take their land, but once a new generation is born it is done and they are as entitled as the previous owners of the land. Countless israelis were born in the conquered land, and their claim to that land is as good as your claim for land in England.

The West roundly criticises the Peoples Republic of China for taking Tibet militarily and subsequently settling people there. The only problem is if you don't criticise Israel for doing basically the same thing then you are being a hypocrite. The moral (and legal) high ground is worth having.

Who is criticising China, besides Richard Gere and the Dalai Lama?

For every intellectual criticising China there are somthing like 10,000 intellectuals criticising Israel, nevermind the fact that Israel treated the palestinians far better than the chinese treated the tibetans. Also Israel's claim to the land was much better than China's.

Seriously, this anti-Israel hysteria in Europe and Latin America can only be attributed to left-wing idiocy or good old anti-semitism. In Latin America my guess is that the first is stronger, Europe has a consistent history of favouring the second.

 

[bathsheba666]

Sure, that would surely help a lot

I forgot that Palestinians are much more important trading partner. And they all love us!

Seriously, EU has not a single reason to support Palestinians. They're outsiders, terrorist-supporters (as they demonstrated by voting for Hamas in free and fair elections monitored by EU observers) and biggest receivers of EU aid, which ends in hands of terrorists like Arafat.

EU is in fact paying a ransom to people who wouldn't give a damn if whole EU was obliterated.

I like the way you analyse a moral position in terms of what return you can get on it.

No, I love it. Keep it coming.

 

[bathsheba666]

Seriously, this anti-Israel hysteria in Europe and Latin America can only be attributed to left-wing idiocy or good old anti-semitism. In Latin America my guess is that the first is stronger, Europe has a consistent history of favouring the second.

'Seriously'....
Bit of a giveaway.

Try deeper analysis,
more rigorous thought,
less wishful thinking,
less cartoony a depiction of the opposition.

 

[EdwardTking]

Seriously, this anti-Israel hysteria in Europe and Latin America can only be attributed to left-wing idiocy or good old anti-semitism. In Latin America my guess is that the first is stronger, Europe has a consistent history of favouring the second.

Luiz, I don't think it is due to "good old anti-semitism" at all.

To my mind the reasons for being Anti-Israel in Europe include:

(i) sucking up to Arab states with oil, for them to sell it to Europe,
buy EU goods or store their money in european banks,

(ii) sucking up to univinted Islamic immigarants
who out number, and therefore, outvote the Jews.

(iii) irritation that problem was imposed by USA and USSR

(iv) anti-americanism (as USA prime supporter of Israel)

(v) left wing found Palestine a convenient rallying cry

(vi) and some criticism of Israel is very reasonable.

 

[luiz]

'Seriously'....
Bit of a giveaway.

Try deeper analysis,
more rigorous thought,
less wishful thinking,
less cartoony a depiction of the opposition.

OK. Give me a rational explanation for why Israel is hundreds of times more criticised than China (for what they did in Tibet). Or any other country that occupied foreign territories for that matter.

What Edward TKing said makes perfect good sense, and it only confirms my suspicion that only a fraction of the criticism that Israel receives in Europe is for legitmate reasons (and the same is obviously true for Latin America, but here the reasons are much more evident and less complex).

 

[bathsheba666]

@Luiz,

I wonder why I should bother, when the only possible reasons for my viewpoint are that I am a left wing idiot or an anti-semite.

One clear reason why Israel and the US get criticised more than China is that, many years ago now, they were regarded as civilised countries.
They are held to a higher standard of behaviour than the barbarians.

Although that perspective is unravelling alarmingly quickly, there is still enough disbelief around at what is happening, allied to the fact that they are lumped in with the West, and therefore we suffer guilt by association.

Or, even worse with our catamite prime minister, equally red hands.

 

[Hotpoint]

The Anglo-Saxons got away with it in their conquest of England. The English-Americans got away with it in the conquest of the US. The Spanish and Portuguese got away with it in the conquest of Latin America.
And China did get away with the conquest of Tibet.

Fact is we are all living in conquered land. It is certainly wrong to kick a people out and take their land, but once a new generation is born it is done and they are as entitled as the previous owners of the land. Countless israelis were born in the conquered land, and their claim to that land is as good as your claim for land in England.

Strangely I thought we were supposed to be past that stage in the 21st Century. Are we really saying that a war of conquest and subsequent colonisation is okay as long as we get away with it?

Anyhow we're not talking about a people being resident for centuries, we're only talking post 1967 for pity's sake.

Also Israel's claim to the land was much better than China's.

On what basis? Tibet was under Chinese control far more recently in history than the diaspora

Seriously, this anti-Israel hysteria in Europe and Latin America can only be attributed to left-wing idiocy or good old anti-semitism. In Latin America my guess is that the first is stronger, Europe has a consistent history of favouring the second.

Once again it seems it's very much easier to disengage your brain and see anti-semites under the bed than it is to realise that regarding the occupied territories Israel was clearly in the wrong to seek to settle land outside their internationally recognised borders.

I'm neither left wing nor anti-semitic (incidentally I'm of Jewish descent myself on my mothers side) I just think that we should try and run the planet on a principle slightly more advanced than "might is right".

 

[Princeps]

For every intellectual criticising China there are somthing like 10,000 intellectuals criticising Israel, nevermind the fact that Israel treated the palestinians far better than the chinese treated the tibetans. Also Israel's claim to the land was much better than China's.

Actually, Israeli treatment is hardly "far" better, only mildly better. Israel is still violates wide range of human rights and international treaties.

 

[Sidhe]

Strangely I thought we were supposed to be past that stage in the 21st Century. Are we really saying that a war of conquest and subsequent colonisation is okay as long as we get away with it?

Anyhow we're not talking about a people being resident for centuries, we're only talking post 1967 for pity's sake.



On what basis? Tibet was under Chinese control far more recently in history than the diaspora



Once again it seems it's very much easier to disengage your brain and see anti-semites under the bed than it is to realise that regarding the occupied territories Israel was clearly in the wrong to seek to settle land outside their internationally recognised borders.

I'm neither left wing nor anti-semitic (incidentally I'm of Jewish descent myself on my mothers side) I just think that we should try and run the planet on a principle slightly more advanced than "might is right".

Excellent post there Hot Point.

I think when Israel invaded these lands it was over a genuine concern that they should strike first, before the Palestinians took the fight to them, it was a militarlily sound judgement to a point, although entirely over done, again the Israeli people protested this action, as they did the actions in the last war with Lebanon, who listens to the moderates anyway I wonder?

That said though what reason do they have to keep the land now and why is it they can't understand that the only real way to peace is to give it back to the Palestinians and let them set up there own state, it sounds so simple, although with Hamas in power it is undeniably more difficult, but again it seems they have thrown any chance they had of hearing a two state deal from Hamas out of the window, in a very over agressive set of moves, why isn't it clear that peace is the only rational answer to this problem, I've yet to see overt warfare working, it has always just created division, disollusionment and hatred, whichever side starts the wheel turning, wheels within wheels and a seemingly never ending world of pain for both sides.

 

[luiz]

Strangely I thought we were supposed to be past that stage in the 21st Century. Are we really saying that a war of conquest and subsequent colonisation is okay as long as we get away with it?

Anyhow we're not talking about a people being resident for centuries, we're only talking post 1967 for pity's sake.

The chinese occupation of Tibet is in historical terms very close to the israeli formations. And so are countless other land grabs that are nowhere nearly as criticised (like Russia's land grabs post-WW2, not all of which were returned after the collpase of the USSR).
I sincerely cannot see good reason for the double-standard.

And if we're talking about post 1967, how about acknowleging that Barak was ready to give most of the occupied land back and it was Arafat who didn't even bother to negotiate? How come this "small" fact is always neglected by the anti-Israeli crowd?

On what basis? Tibet was under Chinese control far more recently in history than the diaspora

On the basis that China had absolutely no reason to invade Tibet. The israelies did have a good reason for wanting a national state. It may have been poorly implemented but the reason was there nonetheless.

Once again it seems it's very much easier to disengage your brain and see anti-semites under the bed than it is to realise that regarding the occupied territories Israel was clearly in the wrong to seek to settle land outside their internationally recognised borders.

I'm neither left wing nor anti-semitic (incidentally I'm of Jewish descent myself on my mothers side) I just think that we should try and run the planet on a principle slightly more advanced than "might is right".

Fact is I see no good reason for the ramapant double standard regarding Israel in Europe and Latin America. I only see bad reasons, two of which I outlined. Edward TKing mentioned other reasons, and as I stated earlier what he said makes good sense as well.

 

[Hotpoint]

The chinese occupation of Tibet is in historical terms very close to the israeli formations. And so are countless other land grabs that are nowhere nearly as criticised (like Russia's land grabs post-WW2, not all of which were returned after the collpase of the USSR).
I sincerely cannot see good reason for the double-standard.

You think we shouldn't expect a westernised Liberal Democracy to hold itself to higher ethical, moral and legal standards than a Communist Dictatorship?

And if we're talking about post 1967, how about acknowleging that Barak was ready to give most of the occupied land back and it was Arafat who didn't even bother to negotiate? How come this "small" fact is always neglected by the anti-Israeli crowd?

The Barak never offered a complete return to the 1967 Borders, Israel wanted the permanent annexation of part of the West Bank, but it has no legal claim to any of the land it took in 1967. Even so I can't say I'm a fan of Arafat (which is not to say that two wrongs make a right).

On the basis that China had absolutely no reason to invade Tibet. The israelies did have a good reason for wanting a national state. It may have been poorly implemented but the reason was there nonetheless.

I have no problem at all with the existance of Israel as long as it doesn't think it can expand into territory that doesn't belong to it. I can say pretty much the same thing for every state on the planet for that matter.

I'll even say that Israel had a good reason to seize the occupied territories as a buffer which can be justified under a nations right to self-defence. It's the settlements that are... indefencible

Fact is I see no good reason for the ramapant double standard regarding Israel in Europe and Latin America. I only see bad reasons, two of which I outlined. Edward TKing mentioned other reasons, and as I stated earlier what he said makes good sense as well.

Look harder

 

[Winner]

You miss the point I'm afraid. If Israel had kept the occupied territories as a buffer against future aggression your argument would have held some water. However by allowing settlement of the area that argument lost validity.

The conquest was intended to be temporary. Sadly, nobody seemed to talk with Israel, so they kept it.

Personaly, I also think that Israeli policy of settling that areas was wrong and shortsided. They should have removed the native population or they shouldn't have settle it. Either way, by letting people live in the enemy territory, they just exposed them to great danger.

If you want a historical parallel, Rome often justified it's wars against the Gallic Tribes by saying they were pre-emptive defensive operations (citing reasonably they were in responce to the sack of Rome by the Gauls in 387BC). The problem is that when you start colonising the areas you can't claim defence any more... that's Empire.

Israelis don't want to build empire. If they did, they would never pull back from any land they've taken.

Remember also that the territories seized in 1967 weren't Palestinian anyway. The Gaza strip was Egyptian, the Golan was Syrian and the West Bank was part of Jordan.

That is why I used quotation marks. Anyway, Golan Heights seem to be calm, after the local population left the place.