Tony Benn slams BBC on air for "capitulating to Israeli pressure"

Linton

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

...;
The BBC like most lefties usually takes the anti-Israel stance because that is the anti-American stance. If Wedgwood Benn -- the former Lord Stansgate : member of the landed aristocracy -- is too left even for the BBC then it probably says more about him than them. All news outlets would do well not to give that preposterous old windbag air-time.

Lets just correct you here. Tony Benn wasnt a scion of the landed aristocracy. His father was a labour politician who was given a peerage by Churchill during the wartime coalition government.. If there had been life peeerages at the time I guess he would have got one of those.

Torry_Quine

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

It's a tragic situation, but hardly an unpredictable one.
When they founded Israel in 1948 didn't anyone wonder what the consequences would be of defining an area as the inalianable homeland of people who hadn't lived there for a thousand years, and was already inhabited by other long-established people?
They chose to base their country on inevitable and everlasting conflict with their neighbours and co-inhabitants.

I was just saying this yesterday. It really wasn't thought through. In my opinion both sides are at fault here and the ordinary people are the ones who are suffering.

Linton

Rather than arguing one side is right and the other wrong, perhaps it is more fruitful to consider whether their tactics are effective. Clearly Hamas is not much further forward in achieving their objectives, indeed they have been counter productive in that it has been made much easier for Israel to gain the uncritical support of the USA and made life more difficult for any US opponents of Israeli policy.

Conversely, are Israel's actions giving them greater long term security? Or are they acting as the most effective recruiting officer Hamas could hope for and also reducing support for moderate views in the Arab world?

If Israel really wants a peaceful future perhaps they would be better advised to do all they can to improve the life of the people in Gaza and the West Bank. A stable wealthy middle class in those areas would surely do far more for peace than any crushing defeat and further impoverishment of the population.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

Rather than arguing one side is right and the other wrong, perhaps it is more fruitful to consider whether their tactics are effective. Clearly Hamas is not much further forward in achieving their objectives, indeed they have been counter productive in that it has been made much easier for Israel to gain the uncritical support of the USA and made life more difficult for any US opponents of Israeli policy.

Conversely, are Israel's actions giving them greater long term security? Or are they acting as the most effective recruiting officer Hamas could hope for and also reducing support for moderate views in the Arab world?

If Israel really wants a peaceful future perhaps they would be better advised to do all they can to improve the life of the people in Gaza and the West Bank. A stable wealthy middle class in those areas would surely do far more for peace than any crushing defeat and further impoverishment of the population.

Out of interest; while Israel was busy improving the lot of people living in Gaza, what would Hamas be doing?

The_White_Horse

check out this article written by an Arab for Arab News:
http://www.arabnews.com/arab-spring-and-israeli-enemy

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

Out of interest; while Israel was busy improving the lot of people living in Gaza, what would Hamas be doing?

If a significant number of people were gaining from cooperating with Israel then one could argue that Hamas would never have got such influence. But, at the moment Hamas would seem to be the only people offering the inhabitants of Gaza any hope at all, possibly illusory, but its better than nothing.

So instead of bombs and shells, how about supplying food, medical supplies or even $$$s? Then the threat that this could stop if the rockets dont cease could have a better chance of working for the long term than current policy.

ILW

The whole set up was just a clever way of Europe trying to put a problem of it's own a long way away.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

If a significant number of people were gaining from cooperating with Israel then one could argue that Hamas would never have got such influence. But, at the moment Hamas would seem to be the only people offering the inhabitants of Gaza any hope at all, possibly illusory, but its better than nothing.

So instead of bombs and shells, how about supplying food, medical supplies or even $$$s? Then the threat that this could stop if the rockets dont cease could have a better chance of working for the long term than current policy.

I understand what you are saying but do you really think that a very heavily armed group would be intimitated by a few middle class people wanting aid to continue?
Basically we are doing that in Afganistan with, I think limited success.

Sadly I can't see any real progress until all the people with vested interests (Syria, Jordon, Saudi, Iran etc plus all the terrorist groups) actually want a solution.

The_White_Horse

Linton wrote: »

If Israel really wants a peaceful future perhaps they would be better advised to do all they can to improve the life of the people in Gaza and the West Bank. A stable wealthy middle class in those areas would surely do far more for peace than any crushing defeat and further impoverishment of the population.

From the IDF official website:

On Nov. 18, 2012, the IDF coordinated the transfer of 124 trucks of goods and gas to the Gaza Strip via the Kerem Shalom crossing.

Lt. Col. Avi Shalev is the head of the economics branch of the IDF Gaza Coordination, Liaison and Administration Unit

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but do you really think that a very heavily armed group would be intimitated by a few middle class people wanting aid to continue?
Basically we are doing that in Afganistan with, I think limited success.

Sadly I can't see any real progress until all the people with vested interests (Syria, Jordon, Saudi, Iran etc plus all the terrorist groups) actually want a solution.

Agree that only benefiting a few is not a long term solution. Britain used that policy during much of its colonial period. You need the majority involved.

That list of people with vested interest should also include Israel and their supporters in the USA. At the moment the only situation they seem willing to accept is total victory with no acknowledgement that the Palestinians do have a valid case.

When assessing situations I like to check my own prejudices by asking whether my views would be different if through a different history the positions of the protagonists were reversed. eg armed Arab settlement over an historically recent and short period had led to the disappearance of a 1000 year Jewish dominated region with its inhabitants rendered stateless and dispersed to refugee camps. I suspect many of the currently pro Israel groups would be praising the brave freedom fighters struggling to regain their homeland.