White phosphorus used again now in Gaza

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

From BBC news:

"There was fire, and so much white smoke," she says. "The missile melted my children. My daughter-in-law melted in front of my eyes."

My thoughts on the subject are too 'incendiary' to post them here.

[Swatopluk]

Well, that just means that the wicked witches of East and West took refuge in the Gaza strip. There was only water in those missiles. Can a beleagured state not even defend itself against witchcraft without being accused of war crimes? And wait until we get all those magic Hamas goats </sarcasm eating hole into keyboard>

[Darlica]

I can't find words to describe what I feel, and if I did found them they wouldn't be fit for this place.

The whole Israel- Palestine issue is a bundle of worms and traps.

What happened in 1948 when the State of Israel was born has proven to be one of the costliest political decisions ever counted in human tragedy and suffering. A open wound that just won't heal.

To me it proves the danger of a state rooted in religious beliefs, when religion and politics are so closely knit that you can't tell them apart.
It has always been difficult to criticise Israels treatment of the Palestinians, you often get the "you are an Anti-Semit" thrown in your face, even tough the criticism isn't about religion but about political decisions.

IMHO is that UN should have moved in a very long time a ago and nipped this thing in the bud when it was clear that the war wouldn't end. The should have disarmed both parts and forced them to work together creating a state for both the Jewish and Arabic population.
Unfortunately the world was to busy engaging in the cold war and the western world still feeling guilt towards the Jewish people for the atrocity committed by the Nazis.

I could go on but I better not, it' wont be good for my blood pressure.
 

[Opsa]

It is awful. What do you suppose is the best thing we might can do in response?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

It is awful. What do you suppose is the best thing we might can do in response?

Well, doing *something* is preferable to doing *nothing* I think.

Doing nothing was the chief card played by Bush, with regards to the area.

We will see if Obama can step up to the plate on this one:  his agenda is quite full at the mo, with the tanked economy.  But we shall see.

[beagle]

It is awful. What do you suppose is the best thing we might can do in response?

Realistically, there's nothing anything but American voters can do. Israel only needs one friend if that friend is by far the biggest kid on the block.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I hate to recall that it was the US Army who was using white phosphorus as a weapon in the battle of Faluja. I honestly hope that the issue is brought up to the attention of the Obama administration, but I'm somewhat skeptical about major changes in US policy regarding Israel (and even forcing the US army to clean its act).

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

What happened in 1948 when the State of Israel was born has proven to be one of the costliest political decisions ever counted in human tragedy and suffering. A open wound that just won't heal.

*points accusatory finger at Churchill*
An awful lot of the conflicts of the 20th century could have been avoided if Europe had paid more attention to local, long-term conflicts when they were de-colonizing the rest of the world.
Churchill (as I recall, anyway) and his cronies sort of lopped the area up between the Jews and the Palestinians. No regard for the potential time bomb when any sensible person would have guessed there would be conflict.

[/history rant]

[phosphorous] Why isn't this considered on par with mustard gas? It's evil!

[beagle]

An awful lot of the conflicts of the 20th century could have been avoided if Europe had paid more attention to local, long-term conflicts when they were de-colonizing the rest of the world.
Churchill (as I recall, anyway) and his cronies sort of lopped the area up between the Jews and the Palestinians. No regard for the potential time bomb when any sensible person would have guessed there would be conflict.

The British Empire was more or less explosively decolonised, as Britain was bankrupted by the vast cost of prosecuting the Second World War. There was also in fact a huge amount of pressure from the U.S. for the state of Israel to be created (though the idea had been kicking around since at least the Balfour Declaration (which did indeed mention the rights of non-Jews, but didn't anticipate the hundreds of thousands of displaced people)).

Having said that there's no doubt India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestine and Africa could all have been handled better in general, and much better in a more gradual process, but the U.S. made clear that the maintenance or even phased dismantling of the British Empire was not one of its war or peace aims  .

I think there was also an element of "They don't want us in charge, fine let's see how they get on without us".  Also, with big economic problems at home, sorting out warring "tribes" on the other side of the world probably seemed a low priority (sound familiar?).

Of course chaos usually ensues when a central power rolls back and local enmities re-emerge. Just look at Rome or Yugoslavia...

[Swatopluk]

And in the case of Pakistan there are claims by notable historians* that the circumstances of its creation were deliberately engineered by India/Britain with the purpose of failure, so the Muslims would come back turban in hand begging for readmittance (100% on India's terms of course). And the Cashmere decision is rumored to be part of that (Hindu ruler of majority Muslim province decides to join India instead of Pakistan).

*some of them potentially biased Jinnah fans though

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

[phosphorous] Why isn't this considered on par with mustard gas? It's evil!

For the same reason water boarding was considered enhanced interrogation and not torture? 
---
The Palestine problem is very complicated although I do agree that creating the state of Israel in Palestine was possibly one of the worst ideas conceived in the XX century. For what I read here the Jewish population was significantly smaller from the Arab population before 1945 with only Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem as the places where half or more of the population was Jewish*.

It would seem more logical to create that state in Europe, possibly in eastern Prussia (where Kaliningrad is now), or due to the soviet de facto invasion, possibly between Austria and Western Germany**. The population of Israel as it is now, is fundamentally European and IMO they should have remained in Europe.

My cynic self thinks that the whole point of the state of Israel was to get rid of the Jews in Europe, and perhaps the US (which had received a large chunk since the pre-war, and had [has still?] a good portion of antisemitism in its soil).

As things stand now the state of Israel wont go anywhere else, and everybody has to deal with the mess. The sad part IMO is that the main negotiation offer to the Palestinians is to accept whatever Israel wants to give them without complain, and accept that they lost wars that they themselves didn't started.

And then you wonder why they're so pissed off.

* The numbers aren't precise, you'll have to read the whole thing to get the gist of it.
** Obviously not creating the state of Israel in Palestine begs the question of what would 600K Jews would have done as Jordanian or Egyptian subjects considering that some were engaged in what we now would call terrorism against the British before that moment.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I agree creating Israel somewhere *other* than the middle east would've been a tremendous idea, if the reasons for creating it the first place were entirely political or secular.

Alas, neither of those is the main reason:  it was a historical-religious one.

And the middle east is the *only* location that would satisfy the superstitious among those favoring it's creation.

There are the Jews themselves, of course, and there was a very strong (if small) pro-Zionist movement in Palestine during WW2 made up of ex-pats and other Jews.  It also included sympathetic non-Jews, of course.

Then there was the end-time Christian supporters, who firmly believed that their limited god would not end the world until Israel was re-established upon historical locations.  As if god waits on the vagrancies of human behavior!  (and just as sadly, they could not see this consequence of their beliefs/actions, either....)

Then, there was a great huge GUILTY feeling among many in Europe: "We let the holocaust happen....we have to *do* something to prove *we* weren't a part of that"

I think these factors were likely stronger than any desire to "get the Jews out of Europe".... as I did not really detect a strong desire for that, aside from Hitler's sociopathic ideas.

Have I missed something?  Very likely.... I'm at best, and armchair history buff, after all. 

[Swatopluk]

I think Bavaria would be a good location for the new Israel with the Bavarians deported to Austria in order to make room (they have about the same flaws in character and have historically joined forces against the rest of Germany often enough).
The Temple Mount in Jerusalem should be completely annihilated*. The Chinese have practical experience in non-nuclear removal of mountains and are ideologically/historically neutral in relation to Semites (Jews and Arabs), so they should do it. The rubble is to be dropped into some deep sea chasm or another location where it cannot be retrieved easily.
While we are at it: Give Cyprus to the Palestinians and deport all Greeks and Turks to their respective home countries.
But no Kristian(TM) end-time believers are to be allowed into either the new Isreal or into the place where the old one was (violation of that rule will be punished by drowning in the new lake or deportation for life to Austria**)

*creating a deep lake in the process. just down to ground level alone is insufficient.
**in case that they are also climate change deniers the place of deportation is to be Nauru

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Wouldn't be easier to convince the Russians to surrender Kaliningrad, leave the Palestinians alone, and move the Kurds to Cyprus?

I don't support the temple mount idea only for archaeological reasons, perhaps a careful disassembly and move to Kaliningrad? 

[beagle]

Then, there was a great huge GUILTY feeling among many in Europe: "We let the holocaust happen....we have to *do* something to prove *we* weren't a part of that"

I don't honestly think that was a factor in the British mindset, after all we were at war with the Nazis before it started. The British <-> Jewish relationship was more complicated. My parents generation were initially pro-Jewish because they were with us in WWII and Britain had already had a native Jewish population for centuries. However they felt totally betrayed when the Jewish terrorists/freedom-fighters/whatever blew up the King David Hotel and also kidnapped and killed British troops in Palestine. Don't know about the 50s but by the 60s/70s The pro-Jewish view was in the ascendant again,due to Palestinian terrorist/freedom-fighter/whatever aircraft hijacks, killings and attacks in the West.
Probably now instant global news has pushed sympathies back to the Palestinian side, but with the overriding secular view that both Jews and Arabs take religion far too seriously.

I can't think how a Jewish state in Europe would have worked. Certainly Stalin wasn't keen on religion, and most of the continent was in ruins and starving.