Jump to content

"STUC calls on Celtic fans to fly flag for Palestine at Israeli match"


Drew Busby !

Recommended Posts

Agreed. Brazil played some of the greatest football ever under a military dictatorship, Italy won two World Cups under fascism etc.

 

Mind you, I do think England should be kicked out of the World Cup if the Chilcot Enquiry finds out the UK invaded Iraq under false pretences :curtain:

 

:laugh:

 

On the contrary. As Britain was led by a Scottish Prime Minister at the time, I think Scotland should be suspended from all international competition indefinitely. :curtain:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Baird, King and Michael
:laugh:

 

On the contrary. As Britain was led by a Scottish Prime Minister at the time, I think Scotland should be suspended from all international competition indefinitely. :curtain:

 

In a spirit of solidarity with oppressed peoples across the world Scotland have boycotted every major International tournament since 1998!:curtain:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lost in leith
You're out of date, Geoff - most Arab states do recognise Israel's right to exist within its pre-1967 frontier. Even Yasser Arafat made that commitment in 1993.

 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israel-PLO%20Recognition%20-%20Exchange%20of%20Letters%20betwe

 

Unfortunately duplicitous Zionist Israel takes with both hands and has continued to expand the illegal settlements to the point where a viable state for the Palestinians on the West Bank is virtually impossible to establish. However nature is at hand to put a massive spanner in the works of future Zionist expansion. Water or the lack of it is rapidly becoming a serious problem.

 

Not convinced that Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist, and the current regime in Iran certainly doesn't.

 

I agree with a lot of your criticism of Israel's actions, but some of her neighbours have not exactly helped the Palestinians either, or treated them well. It's also noticeable that oil rich Arab states seem to have more interest in football clubs and racehorses than humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.

 

I think Arafat has a lot to answer for. There might have been a glimmer of hope a few years ago, as Fatah is not sectarian in the way that Hamas is. However, it looks like the Fatah leadership grew corrupt and did very little with the power they had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lost in leith
:laugh:

 

On the contrary. As Britain was led by a Scottish Prime Minister at the time, I think Scotland should be suspended from all international competition indefinitely. :curtain:

 

Based on recent events I'd probably vote for that proposal!

 

My recollection was that Tony Blair supported England (a political McGheady :clover:). Football clearly confused him, as his recollections of watching Jackie Milburn show :stuart:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on recent events I'd probably vote for that proposal!

 

My recollection was that Tony Blair supported England (a political McGheady :clover:). Football clearly confused him, as his recollections of watching Jackie Milburn show :stuart:

 

He'd have supported any UK team at a major tournament though. I remember him telling the French Parliament early in 1998 that he was looking forward to the World Cup Final: "Angleterre contre Ecosse". :smiley2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a spirit of solidarity with oppressed peoples across the world Scotland have boycotted every major International tournament since 1998!:curtain:

 

Apart from Olympic women's curling, of course. :2thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lost in leith
He'd have supported any UK team at a major tournament though. I remember him telling the French Parliament early in 1998 that he was looking forward to the World Cup Final: "Angleterre contre Ecosse". :smiley2:

 

Again demonstrating that he knows feck all about football :smiley2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not convinced that Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist, and the current regime in Iran certainly doesn't.

 

I agree with a lot of your criticism of Israel's actions, but some of her neighbours have not exactly helped the Palestinians either, or treated them well. It's also noticeable that oil rich Arab states seem to have more interest in football clubs and racehorses than humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.

 

I think Arafat has a lot to answer for. There might have been a glimmer of hope a few years ago, as Fatah is not sectarian in the way that Hamas is. However, it looks like the Fatah leadership grew corrupt and did very little with the power they had.

 

I agree with much of your post.

 

You are of course right about Hamas. The schism between the two Palestinian factions is another factor which has played into Zionist hands. Mamhoud Abbas has thrown in the towel out of desperation for the impossible situation, especially after the Gaza slaughter, and Nethanyahu is rubbing his hands with glee. The losers of course are the Palestinian as the Zionist land theft continues apace.

 

Iran of course is not an Arab state but, yes, the current powers that be are anti-Israel. The whole gulf region is concerned about Iran. There is however a growing opposition to Ahmajinedad's government.

 

The whole scene in the Middle East would change for the better if Israel changed course and saw sense. Unfortunately the Zionist expansionist scheme is going full tilt ahead.

 

Those who say both sides should be treated equally seem to me to be totally ignoring what is happening on the ground. Does this mean that they have no problem with the Zionist land grab, or do they think the Palestinians, whose ownership of these lands and properties have been in their families for centuries, somehow deserve to be driven out - well they are only peasant Arabs after all? Creeping ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians using the same bulldozer and explosive tactics employed by the Nazis in Europe 70 years to drive their European forefathers from their homes and businesses is OK, is it?

 

Yeah, it's an equal struggle right enough.

 

And we wonder why there are people intent on revenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again demonstrating that he knows feck all about football :smiley2:

 

His attendance record at St James' Park was about as good as his one in Parliament! :curtain:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No . the losers are, as ever, all of the people. Your language is inflammatory in the extreme and once again I'd ask what on earth you think such a tone is likely to achieve?

 

 

I agree with much of your post.

 

You are of course right about Hamas. The schism between the two Palestinian factions is another factor which has played into Zionist hands. Mamhoud Abbas has thrown in the towel out of desperation for the impossible situation, especially after the Gaza slaughter, and Nethanyahu is rubbing his hands with glee. The losers of course are the Palestinian as the Zionist land theft continues apace.

 

Iran of course is not an Arab state but, yes, the current powers that be are anti-Israel. The whole gulf region is concerned about Iran. There is however a growing opposition to Ahmajinedad's government.

 

The whole scene in the Middle East would change for the better if Israel changed course and saw sense. Unfortunately the Zionist expansionist scheme is going full tilt ahead.

 

Those who say both sides should be treated equally seem to me to be totally ignoring what is happening on the ground. Does this mean that they have no problem with the Zionist land grab, or do they think the Palestinians, whose ownership of these lands and properties have been in their families for centuries, somehow deserve to be driven out - well they are only peasant Arabs after all? Creeping ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians using the same bulldozer and explosive tactics employed by the Nazis in Europe 70 years to drive their European forefathers from their homes and businesses is OK, is it?

 

Yeah, it's an equal struggle right enough.

 

And we wonder why there are people intent on revenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No . the losers are, as ever, all of the people. Your language is inflammatory in the extreme and once again I'd ask what on earth you think such a tone is likely to achieve?

 

Completely agree. Barack Obama, an American President who actually wants to change things and secure peace, would be shaking his head at what billco's writing too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lost in leith
I agree with much of your post.

 

You are of course right about Hamas. The schism between the two Palestinian factions is another factor which has played into Zionist hands. Mamhoud Abbas has thrown in the towel out of desperation for the impossible situation, especially after the Gaza slaughter, and Nethanyahu is rubbing his hands with glee. The losers of course are the Palestinian as the Zionist land theft continues apace.

 

Iran of course is not an Arab state but, yes, the current powers that be are anti-Israel. The whole gulf region is concerned about Iran. There is however a growing opposition to Ahmajinedad's government.

 

The whole scene in the Middle East would change for the better if Israel changed course and saw sense. Unfortunately the Zionist expansionist scheme is going full tilt ahead.

 

Those who say both sides should be treated equally seem to me to be totally ignoring what is happening on the ground. Does this mean that they have no problem with the Zionist land grab, or do they think the Palestinians, whose ownership of these lands and properties have been in their families for centuries, somehow deserve to be driven out - well they are only peasant Arabs after all? Creeping ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians using the same bulldozer and explosive tactics employed by the Nazis in Europe 70 years to drive their European forefathers from their homes and businesses is OK, is it?

 

Yeah, it's an equal struggle right enough.

 

And we wonder why there are people intent on revenge.

 

The only glimmer of hope I can see is a more moderate regime in Israel that recognises that there has to be a trade off in terms of land. I think the vote for Hamas was in part a cry of despair. Real repatriation of land and a genuine international commitment to helping the Palestinians out of the mire would be steps in the right direction.

 

Your last point - I'm not a Cherie Blair fan, but I can understand the comments she made a few years ago after visiting the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agree. Barack Obama, an American President who actually wants to change things and secure peace, would be shaking his head at what billco's writing too.

 

Uncomfortable truths - just sweep them under the carpet I suppose or throw the accusation of inflammatory rhetoric at me.

 

I notice you don't have any comments to make regarding the continuing land grab which is the kernal of the problem or is that too imflammatory a subject for you to engage in.

 

Now that I've said my piece on the subject so I shall leave you in peace to contemplate your navel and to wash you kid gloves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lost in leith
No . the losers are, as ever, all of the people. Your language is inflammatory in the extreme and once again I'd ask what on earth you think such a tone is likely to achieve?

 

It's true to say that few (outside of the arms industry) gain from continuing conflict. However, it's fatuous to suggest it affects everyone in the same way - surely any objective observer would agree that the Palestinians suffer the most in the continuing conflict?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncomfortable truths - just sweep them under the carpet I suppose or throw the accusation of inflamatory rhetoric at me.

 

I notice you don't have any comments to make regarding the continuing land grab which is the kernal of the problem or is that too imflammatory a subject for you to engage in.

 

Now that I've said my piece on the subject so I shall leave you in peace to contemplate your navel wash you kid gloves.

 

No, billco. My sympathies lie with the Palestinians too: I'm one of those "self-hating Jews" the likes of Netanyahu refer to derisively. But when discussing an issue such as this, I think you should be sticking to calm, reasonable language and just stating the facts.

 

Language such as the "Zionist land theft", the "Zionist expansion scheme", the "Zionist land grab", "creeping ethnic cleansing" and "duplicitous Zionist Israel" isn't calm and reasonable at all; and begins to veer away from cool facts, towards your own impassioned opinion. In the cause of peace, which we all want, it isn't helpful in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Bilco acknowledged the earlier posts whicg point out the "zionists", historically, have a right to be where they are?

 

Or is he like a Hibby, picks his own starting point in history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Language such as the "Zionist land theft", the "Zionist expansion scheme", the "Zionist land grab", "creeping ethnic cleansing" and "duplicitous Zionist Israel" isn't calm and reasonable at all; and begins to veer away from cool facts, towards your own impassioned opinion. In the cause of peace, which we all want, it isn't helpful in any way.

 

 

Sorry, Shaun, but I must come back. Pussy footing diplomatic soft speak cloaked in euphemistic terms so as not to offend Israeli and Zionist Jewish sensibilities or, worse, incur the scurrilous retortive charge of anti-Semitism, is precisely the reason why the illegal acquisition of Palestinian lands and property has proceeded unabated for the past 40 years or is that too inflammatory for you to cope with?

 

The phrases you have put in parenthesis are legitimate descriptions of what is happening on the ground and I would not change a word.

 

I suppose there will be the usual collective hand wringing when the current escallating Israeli inflammatory actions rattle the Palestinian cage enough to spark a reaction giving them the excuse for another bout of 21st century high-tech carnage on a grand scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

I didn't realise this thread had hit the Shed! Now that Septic have come out and said what they said, isn't the matter closed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Bilco acknowledged the earlier posts whicg point out the "zionists", historically, have a right to be where they are?

 

 

And your proof of that statement is on what basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Shaun, but I must come back. Pussy footing diplomatic soft speak cloaked in euphemistic terms so as not to offend Israeli and Zionist Jewish sensibilities or, worse, incur the scurrilous retortive charge of anti-Semitism, is precisely the reason why the illegal acquisition of Palestinian lands and property has proceeded unabated for the past 40 years or is that too inflammatory for you to cope with?

 

The phrases you have put in parenthesis are legitimate descriptions of what is happening on the ground and I would not change a word.

 

I suppose there will be the usual collective hand wringing when the current escallating Israeli inflammatory actions rattle the Palestinian cage enough to spark a reaction giving them the excuse for another bout of 21st century high-tech carnage on a grand scale.

 

I don't think a third Intifada is at all likely. Not with an American President who's a lot more even handed and prone to criticise Israel in situ. The second one only happened because the Oslo process had collapsed, and Clinton, to his eternal disgrace, pinned the blame on Arafat for rejecting a ridiculous, unworkable set of proposals.

 

And my cautioning your use of language has nothing to do with Israeli or Zionist sensibilities or spurious charges of anti-semitism. It has everything to do with what is necessary in any peace process anywhere: empathising with and understanding the other side's point of view and not judging or condemning it. Israel is surrounded by states who've frequently wished to drive it into the sea, many of whom have schools who educate their kids in precisely this, some of whom sponsor terrorism against it, few of whom have any tradition of democracy. Israel puts up with regular terrorist attacks, and is geographically hemmed in: hence the suspicion and aggression of many of its people. People who come from a country the size of Wales.

 

People on the Israeli left - the kind of people who support Hapoel Tel Aviv, incidentally - have long empathised with and understood the Palestinians' struggle. Too many other people in Israeli politics have treated any peace agreement not as a compromise, but as confirmation of victory, believing they could therefore dictate terms to a weak opponent. That isn't on, and I'm sure Obama understands this: more and more people in the traditionally even more Zionist US do, indeed. Because moderate Palestinians aren't opposed to Israel's existence at all: it's the occupation they're opposed to, justifiably so.

 

In the early 1990s, the Northern Ireland Troubles seemed as intractable as ever. Terrorist atrocities were becoming ever worse, the two communities hopelessly divided and alienated from one another. Then brave, courageous men reached out and empathised: inflammatory language faded as the process developed, and the incentive for those involved was there for all to see. Nothing will ever be achieved if the same, tired old rhetoric is just repeated over and over again - because it's not about taking sides. It's about ending this horrible cycle of death and misery, and achieving a peace which lasts. Fingers crossed Obama is somehow able to bang heads together, ignore the extremists in his own country, and do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
And your proof of that statement is on what basis?

 

Ok, now that the topic has moved on, do you agree with the two state solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true to say that few (outside of the arms industry) gain from continuing conflict. However, it's fatuous to suggest it affects everyone in the same way - surely any objective observer would agree that the Palestinians suffer the most in the continuing conflict?

 

But surely that's part of the problem? How do you put a price on "injustice?" Everybody suffers equally in the long run. Isn't one life lost just as important as any other, whatever side of the divide? And entrenched opinions only go to compound and perpetuate the misery.

 

Anyway, Geoff's right. Now that Celtic have spoken, we should all calm down. :stuart:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commander Harris

"We therefore believe Celtic Park is no place for a political demonstration."

 

perhaps they will now start to tackle the "political" songs their support insist on singing...

 

I won't hold my breath

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We therefore believe Celtic Park is no place for a political demonstration."

 

perhaps they will now start to tackle the "political" songs their support insist on singing...

 

I won't hold my breath

 

There was a Celtic fan on Five Live earlier, condemning what the STUC have called for and saying:

 

"This isn't the Scottish way. We welcome all visitors to Celtic Park. Politics have nothing to do with football".

 

Honestly, you couldn't make it up. God knows what Aasmah Mir, one of the presenters and herself a Celtic fan, was thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We therefore believe Celtic Park is no place for a political demonstration."

 

perhaps they will now start to tackle the "political" songs their support insist on singing...

 

I won't hold my breath

 

 

It's quite breathtaking, isn't it? The sheer gall of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

southside1874
To be fair ...on this one, I don't blame the Sellick fans.

 

What annoys me about this bankrupt, corrupt little country is that organisations like the STUC and all their commie friends have far too big a voice and platform to voice their bigoted views. People are very quick to condemn the BNP about some of their odious views but when it comes to the extreme left, different views apply. Let's be clear about this, there is absolutely no difference between extreme left and extreme right. In a political sense, they actually complete a full circle and meet at the end. People wearing Che Gue*ara T shirts are just aswell wearing Hitler T shirts.

 

Anyway, in an age when various bodies are trying to rid football of sectarian and racist elements, we have an erstwhile "respectable" body, doing the exact opposite in a vain attempt to encourage, in some cases intellectually challenged, supporters to do the exact opposite and bring both religion and politics into football by supporting a terrorist organisation with blood on their hands.

 

I am presently a member of a union at work, who have recently become affiliated to the STUC. I will be withdrawing my membership next week and would urge others to do likewise.

 

Surely its better to be involved and have a say rather that withdraw from.............................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely its better to be involved and have a say rather that withdraw from.............................

 

Indeed, particularly as this STUC initiative was more misguided than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Bilco acknowledged the earlier posts whicg point out the "zionists", historically, have a right to be where they are?

 

Or is he like a Hibby, picks his own starting point in history?

 

For them and them alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now that the topic has moved on, do you agree with the two state solution?

 

 

Yes, I do Geoff, but a Palestinian State on the West Bank, given the expanding Israeli settlements and other restrictions cannot be a viable possibility without a substantial withdrawal by Israel which should, in my opinion, be a complete withdrawal to pre-1967 lines. Far from stopping their settlement activity after 1993 and the Oslo Accord they have carried out a rapid expansion which is still going on apace.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/aug/24/israel-settlements-west-bank

 

We have to hope that Obama does not bow to pressure from 'The Lobby' to go easy on Nethanyahu. It is vital that he steps up pressure on the Israeli government. Abbas has already given up hope of him doing anything constructive. Nethanyahu will prevaricate tills the cows come home or a least until there is a Republican in the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a third Intifada is at all likely. Not with an American President who's a lot more even handed and prone to criticise Israel in situ. The second one only happened because the Oslo process had collapsed, and Clinton, to his eternal disgrace, pinned the blame on Arafat for rejecting a ridiculous, unworkable set of proposals.

 

And my cautioning your use of language has nothing to do with Israeli or Zionist sensibilities or spurious charges of anti-semitism. It has everything to do with what is necessary in any peace process anywhere: empathising with and understanding the other side's point of view and not judging or condemning it. Israel is surrounded by states who've frequently wished to drive it into the sea, many of whom have schools who educate their kids in precisely this, some of whom sponsor terrorism against it, few of whom have any tradition of democracy. Israel puts up with regular terrorist attacks, and is geographically hemmed in: hence the suspicion and aggression of many of its people. People who come from a country the size of Wales.

 

People on the Israeli left - the kind of people who support Hapoel Tel Aviv, incidentally - have long empathised with and understood the Palestinians' struggle. Too many other people in Israeli politics have treated any peace agreement not as a compromise, but as confirmation of victory, believing they could therefore dictate terms to a weak opponent. That isn't on, and I'm sure Obama understands this: more and more people in the traditionally even more Zionist US do, indeed. Because moderate Palestinians aren't opposed to Israel's existence at all: it's the occupation they're opposed to, justifiably so.

 

In the early 1990s, the Northern Ireland Troubles seemed as intractable as ever. Terrorist atrocities were becoming ever worse, the two communities hopelessly divided and alienated from one another. Then brave, courageous men reached out and empathised: inflammatory language faded as the process developed, and the incentive for those involved was there for all to see. Nothing will ever be achieved if the same, tired old rhetoric is just repeated over and over again - because it's not about taking sides. It's about ending this horrible cycle of death and misery, and achieving a peace which lasts. Fingers crossed Obama is somehow able to bang heads together, ignore the extremists in his own country, and do that.

 

 

I agree with much of what you say Shaun but cannot agree with an even handed approach being the way forward. Aslo, I would wish to see more concern about what is happening on the West Bank. Expanding Israeli settlements and other restrictions on the use of Palestinian land on the West Bank has reached a virtual stranglehold. Scope for any viable Palestinian state is virtually impossible without substantial Israeli withdrawal and that seems unlikely given that in Israeli eyes possession and development of the land is fait accompli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baird, King and Michael
In the early 1990s, the Northern Ireland Troubles seemed as intractable as ever. Terrorist atrocities were becoming ever worse, the two communities hopelessly divided and alienated from one another. Then brave, courageous men reached out and empathised: inflammatory language faded as the process developed, and the incentive for those involved was there for all to see. Nothing will ever be achieved if the same, tired old rhetoric is just repeated over and over again - because it's not about taking sides. It's about ending this horrible cycle of death and misery, and achieving a peace which lasts. Fingers crossed Obama is somehow able to bang heads together, ignore the extremists in his own country, and do that.

 

Hi Shaun,

 

I don?t doubt for one minute your sincerity in wishing to see a peaceful outcome to the Israel /Palestine problem. Your previous posts also state that you accept that the occupation is wrong so you don?t need or require lectures about history. I feel that I must take issue however with the idea that if only heads could be banged together or if tired old rhetoric could be laid aside then we might find a solution to the problem. (Similar points have been made by a number of posters on this thread.)

 

My father works (voluntarily) for a Christian Peace and Reconciliation group. They sponsor projects that aim to seek to reconcile warring factions. As part of this work he has visited projects across the world including Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. As an avowed atheist I would often argue with him that these conflicts required political solutions rather than well meaning reconciliation projects. (Although I found some of his reports inspiring.)

 

However, 5 years ago his visit to Israel, the Gaza strip and the West Bank opened his eyes to the fact that this is not a conflict of equals nor a situation that can be resolved by protagonists just getting round the table to sort out differences. He has friends and colleagues who work in Christian Witness Programmes in the occupied territories that have arrived at the same conclusion through spending years living amongst the Palestinians.

 

They still call for calm heads, they still oppose the use of terrorism against innocent Israelis, they still work with sympathetic Jewish groups and try their level best to foster better relationships between the two communities. Yet they know that without justice for the Palestinians there can be no resolution to the conflict. They see day after day the economic and physical realities of living under the Israeli occupation. They see the poverty, the discrimination, the violence and the brutality the Palestinians have to endure.

 

This leads to resistance?of course it does. It?s over 50 years since the end of World War 2 yet many in this country still talk with pride about the ?blitz? spirit of a generation who refused to bombed into submission, the refused to be cowed or to lie down in the face of a violent aggressor. Why would we think the Palestinians would be any different? They fight back in which ever way they can. Sometimes with rockets, sometimes with suicide bombers but often by children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks and armoured vehicles This resistance cannot be equated to the systematic oppression of a people by the Israeli army and state and neither should the Palestinians be held responsible or punished for the behaviour of other governments in the region.

 

Like you I hoped Obama would bring a fresh impetus to the conflict resolution process. I see precious little evidence of that so far however. Israel is America?s ?unsinkable aircraft carrier? in a politically important region of the world. The Palestinians have long suffered as a result of western geo-political considerations.

 

The fact that Celtic FC have come out and condemned the planed protest is to be welcomed in so much as it will stop those with other agendas who have contributed to this debate from having another excuse to vent their intolerance.

 

I however hope that as pictures of the game are beamed around the world, the sight of large numbers of Palestinian flags will demonstrate that the plight of a wronged and oppressed people is not forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Shaun,

 

I don?t doubt for one minute your sincerity in wishing to see a peaceful outcome to the Israel /Palestine problem. Your previous posts also state that you accept that the occupation is wrong so you don?t need or require lectures about history. I feel that I must take issue however with the idea that if only heads could be banged together or if tired old rhetoric could be laid aside then we might find a solution to the problem. (Similar points have been made by a number of posters on this thread.)

 

My father works (voluntarily) for a Christian Peace and Reconciliation group. They sponsor projects that aim to seek to reconcile warring factions. As part of this work he has visited projects across the world including Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. As an avowed atheist I would often argue with him that these conflicts required political solutions rather than well meaning reconciliation projects. (Although I found some of his reports inspiring.)

 

However, 5 years ago his visit to Israel, the Gaza strip and the West Bank opened his eyes to the fact that this is not a conflict of equals nor a situation that can be resolved by protagonists just getting round the table to sort out differences. He has friends and colleagues who work in Christian Witness Programmes in the occupied territories that have arrived at the same conclusion through spending years living amongst the Palestinians.

 

They still call for calm heads, they still oppose the use of terrorism against innocent Israelis, they still work with sympathetic Jewish groups and try their level best to foster better relationships between the two communities. Yet they know that without justice for the Palestinians there can be no resolution to the conflict. They see day after day the economic and physical realities of living under the Israeli occupation. They see the poverty, the discrimination, the violence and the brutality the Palestinians have to endure.

 

This leads to resistance?of course it does. It?s over 50 years since the end of World War 2 yet many in this country still talk with pride about the ?blitz? spirit of a generation who refused to bombed into submission, the refused to be cowed or to lie down in the face of a violent aggressor. Why would we think the Palestinians would be any different? They fight back in which ever way they can. Sometimes with rockets, sometimes with suicide bombers but often by children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks and armoured vehicles This resistance cannot be equated to the systematic oppression of a people by the Israeli army and state and neither should the Palestinians be held responsible or punished for the behaviour of other governments in the region.

 

Like you I hoped Obama would bring a fresh impetus to the conflict resolution process. I see precious little evidence of that so far however. Israel is America?s ?unsinkable aircraft carrier? in a politically important region of the world. The Palestinians have long suffered as a result of western geo-political considerations.

 

The fact that Celtic FC have come out and condemned the planed protest is to be welcomed in so much as it will stop those with other agendas who have contributed to this debate from having another excuse to vent their intolerance.

 

I however hope that as pictures of the game are beamed around the world, the sight of large numbers of Palestinian flags will demonstrate that the plight of a wronged and oppressed people is not forgotten.

 

Amen to that, Sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
Yes, I do Geoff, but a Palestinian State on the West Bank, given the expanding Israeli settlements and other restrictions cannot be a viable possibility without a substantial withdrawal by Israel which should, in my opinion, be a complete withdrawal to pre-1967 lines. Far from stopping their settlement activity after 1993 and the Oslo Accord they have carried out a rapid expansion which is still going on apace.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/aug/24/israel-settlements-west-bank

 

We have to hope that Obama does not bow to pressure from 'The Lobby' to go easy on Nethanyahu. It is vital that he steps up pressure on the Israeli government. Abbas has already given up hope of him doing anything constructive. Nethanyahu will prevaricate tills the cows come home or a least until there is a Republican in the White House.

 

I've no issue with that at all although having grown up in a society with 'conflict', it is very glib to have simple solutions. While Israel's military action is reprehensible and unjustifiable, the Palestinians do themselves no favours with their succour to groups who demand the outright destruction of Israel.

 

Quite happy to talk politics now. :smiley2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Shaun,

 

I don?t doubt for one minute your sincerity in wishing to see a peaceful outcome to the Israel /Palestine problem. Your previous posts also state that you accept that the occupation is wrong so you don?t need or require lectures about history. I feel that I must take issue however with the idea that if only heads could be banged together or if tired old rhetoric could be laid aside then we might find a solution to the problem. (Similar points have been made by a number of posters on this thread.)

 

My father works (voluntarily) for a Christian Peace and Reconciliation group. They sponsor projects that aim to seek to reconcile warring factions. As part of this work he has visited projects across the world including Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. As an avowed atheist I would often argue with him that these conflicts required political solutions rather than well meaning reconciliation projects. (Although I found some of his reports inspiring.)

 

However, 5 years ago his visit to Israel, the Gaza strip and the West Bank opened his eyes to the fact that this is not a conflict of equals nor a situation that can be resolved by protagonists just getting round the table to sort out differences. He has friends and colleagues who work in Christian Witness Programmes in the occupied territories that have arrived at the same conclusion through spending years living amongst the Palestinians.

 

They still call for calm heads, they still oppose the use of terrorism against innocent Israelis, they still work with sympathetic Jewish groups and try their level best to foster better relationships between the two communities. Yet they know that without justice for the Palestinians there can be no resolution to the conflict. They see day after day the economic and physical realities of living under the Israeli occupation. They see the poverty, the discrimination, the violence and the brutality the Palestinians have to endure.

 

This leads to resistance?of course it does. It?s over 50 years since the end of World War 2 yet many in this country still talk with pride about the ?blitz? spirit of a generation who refused to bombed into submission, the refused to be cowed or to lie down in the face of a violent aggressor. Why would we think the Palestinians would be any different? They fight back in which ever way they can. Sometimes with rockets, sometimes with suicide bombers but often by children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks and armoured vehicles This resistance cannot be equated to the systematic oppression of a people by the Israeli army and state and neither should the Palestinians be held responsible or punished for the behaviour of other governments in the region.

 

Like you I hoped Obama would bring a fresh impetus to the conflict resolution process. I see precious little evidence of that so far however. Israel is America?s ?unsinkable aircraft carrier? in a politically important region of the world. The Palestinians have long suffered as a result of western geo-political considerations.

 

The fact that Celtic FC have come out and condemned the planed protest is to be welcomed in so much as it will stop those with other agendas who have contributed to this debate from having another excuse to vent their intolerance.

 

I however hope that as pictures of the game are beamed around the world, the sight of large numbers of Palestinian flags will demonstrate that the plight of a wronged and oppressed people is not forgotten.

 

I don't disagree with any of that: it's a fine, fine post. The one thing I would say is on Obama: he's only one year into what should, all things being equal given the state the Republicans are in, be an eight year Presidency. I'm sure we'll be hearing much, much more from him on his plans in time.

 

Previously, when heads were "banged together", it was by an American President outrageously biased towards Israel. I didn't think anyone would be able to outdo Clinton in that regard, yet Bush did: quite unlike his far more statesmanlike father. Obama seems very different to me. The strength of the US' ties with Israel probably mean we'll never get the exact solution most of us hope for; but there is still plenty of hope in my view. I agree with billco, incidentally, that a return to the 1967 borders should be integral to any peace settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what you say Shaun but cannot agree with an even handed approach being the way forward. Aslo, I would wish to see more concern about what is happening on the West Bank. Expanding Israeli settlements and other restrictions on the use of Palestinian land on the West Bank has reached a virtual stranglehold. Scope for any viable Palestinian state is virtually impossible without substantial Israeli withdrawal and that seems unlikely given that in Israeli eyes possession and development of the land is fait accompli.

 

By even handed, I mean:

 

- Israel withdraws to 1967 borders

 

- Palestinians renounce claim to 81% of historical Palestine (because that's what the 1967 borders represent IIRC)

 

- Jerusalem divided in two, with a UN peace force patrolling it. Always complicated, this bit; especially when it comes to Temple Mount! If this isn't possible, some agreement must be reached whereby the two states effectively share sovereignty over a unique, internationalised city.

 

- What results must be a fully contiguous state, with Palestine having full control over its water and power supplies, and Israel dismantling all illegal settlements. It was their continued existence which made what was proposed under Oslo not contiguous, and hence, totally unviable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By even handed, I mean:

 

- Israel withdraws to 1967 borders

 

- Palestinians renounce claim to 81% of historical Palestine (because that's what the 1967 borders represent IIRC)

 

- Jerusalem divided in two, with a UN peace force patrolling it. Always complicated, this bit; especially when it comes to Temple Mount! If this isn't possible, some agreement must be reached whereby the two states effectively share sovereignty over a unique, internationalised city.

 

- What results must be a fully contiguous state, with Palestine having full control over its water and power supplies, and Israel dismantling all illegal settlements. It was their continued existence which made what was proposed under Oslo not contiguous, and hence, totally unviable.

 

That's kind of unsustainable and unwanted in the long-term Shaun (both the Israelis and the Palestinians shouldn't have to put up with an outside force being present on their territory). It's such a mammoth step to achieve the other goals that surely part of this could incorporate some system of joint control over Jerusalem. Personally, I'd like to see some form of innovative solution where Jerusalem became it's own sort of city-state, being part of both countries at the same time, but with power over its own activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of unsustainable and unwanted in the long-term Shaun (both the Israelis and the Palestinians shouldn't have to put up with an outside force being present on their territory). It's such a mammoth step to achieve the other goals that surely part of this could incorporate some system of joint control over Jerusalem. Personally, I'd like to see some form of innovative solution where Jerusalem became it's own sort of city-state, being part of both countries at the same time, but with power over its own activities.

 

Yes, I agree: hence the second part of my point. Joint sovereignty over a city state is the way to go IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By even handed, I mean:

 

- Israel withdraws to 1967 borders

 

- Palestinians renounce claim to 81% of historical Palestine (because that's what the 1967 borders represent IIRC)

 

- Jerusalem divided in two, with a UN peace force patrolling it. Always complicated, this bit; especially when it comes to Temple Mount! If this isn't possible, some agreement must be reached whereby the two states effectively share sovereignty over a unique, internationalised city.

 

- What results must be a fully contiguous state, with Palestine having full control over its water and power supplies, and Israel dismantling all illegal settlements. It was their continued existence which made what was proposed under Oslo not contiguous, and hence, totally unviable.

 

I agree you on the above points.

 

The elephant in the room ,however, is the settler population of close on 300,000 on the West Bank. Where are they going to be relocated to. Most are from Russia, the US and South America. That's what I meant about the fait accompli. Remember the scenes a few years back when a couple of thousand settlers were withdrawn kicking and screaming from Gaza. Remember also how Yitzchak Rabin was assassinated because he had the temerity to suggest abandoning settlements on the West Bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree you on the above points.

 

The elephant in the room ,however, is the settler population of close on 300,000 on the West Bank. Where are they going to be relocated to. Most are from Russia, the US and South America. That's what I meant about the fait accompli. Remember the scenes a few years back when a couple of thousand settlers were withdrawn kicking and screaming from Gaza. Remember also how Yitzchak Rabin was assassinated because he had the temerity to suggest abandoning settlements on the West Bank.

 

All true - but they'll have to be resettled in Israel somehow, however difficult that'll no doubt be. Rabin and Shimon Peres, incidentally, were the people behind the idea of building settlements in the first place, way back in the 1970s: entirely designed to obstruct or even prevent peace from ever happening. Rabin slowly saw the error of his ways; Peres has continually swung back and forth between peace and rejectionism, frequently dividing his own party, and invariably with something of a Midas touch in reverse. Don't get me started about born-again rejectionist Ehud Barak either! :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CavySlaveJambo

As for Obama, he has tried, it is why he got the peace prize already but he got told to F off by Netanyahu.

 

Best thing I believe is for Jurusalem to join the likes of San Marino, and the Vatican as an INDEPENDENT City State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CavySlaveJambo

And being Jewish and being Zionist are not the same things.

You can be jewish and not zionist. You can be jewish and anti-israel.

 

And semite or not is to do with the language and not people or religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All true - but they'll have to be resettled in Israel somehow, however difficult that'll no doubt be. Rabin and Shimon Peres, incidentally, were the people behind the idea of building settlements in the first place, way back in the 1970s: entirely designed to obstruct or even prevent peace from ever happening. Rabin slowly saw the error of his ways; Peres has continually swung back and forth between peace and rejectionism, frequently dividing his own party, and invariably with something of a Midas touch in reverse. Don't get me started about born-again rejectionist Ehud Barak either! :mad:

 

Yes, Shaun, there has been and still is a lot of 'good cop' / 'bad cop' going on. Do not underestimate the wiles of the Zionists - they have every trick in the book up their collective sleeves. I have tremendous sympathy for those in Israel who genuinely argue against the madness but to no avail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colonel Kurtz
Yes, Shaun, there has been and still is a lot of 'good cop' / 'bad cop' going on. Do not underestimate the wiles of the Zionists - they have every trick in the book up their collective sleeves. I have tremendous sympathy for those in Israel who genuinely argue against the madness but to no avail.

 

I go with Kinky Friedman..They dont make jews like jesus anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And being Jewish and being Zionist are not the same things.

You can be jewish and not zionist. You can be jewish and anti-israel.

 

And semite or not is to do with the language and not people or religion.

 

The Bible-Belt Christian Zionists are up there with the most virulent of the species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...