The stupidity of Gaza

Totally agree Hipster. Male genital mutilation is virtually never discussed, and obviously not as devastating as FGM it is nevertheless mutilation carried out on victims for purely religious/cultural reasons not medical reasons. This link is interesting: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk%2F2014%2F02%2Ffemale-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard%2F&ei=naPbU463DNDy7AartIDICQ&usg=AFQjCNGJ4-CxYIoKGYwtNLoY25dT7x789A&sig2=VnPgh-_olapTehoIhFN0DQ&bvm=bv.72197243,d.ZGU

And don't forget Muslims also practice it as well as Jews.

Breadman wrote:Just a quick point:

Male circumcision is done on religious grounds, but those grounds are founded in a belief that it improves personal hygiene. (Correctly, as it turns out.)

FGM is done to exert control and remove "ungodly thoughts" ie, female sex drive.

There's a massive difference.

If they wanted to remove female sex drive it would be a lot easier just to hand young girls a photo of Wayne Rooney.

This opens the door to a debate re the distinction you've drawn between the perceived relative merits of physical and spiritual wellbeing and I'm not sure I want to go there as it would be even messier than the rest of this already messy thread.

So I'll run this one up the flagpole...

If a British Sikh doesn't have to wear a motorbike crash helmet on religious grounds, his personal safety is being compromised by the authorities respect for his religious beliefs. Basically the law says "kill yourself if you must" and thereby puts freedom of choice/human rights above other laws.

If a British Muslim or Jew is allowed to butcher an animal in a way that for other religions is forbidden on religious grounds, the animal's rights are being compromised by the authorities respect for his religious beliefs. Basically the law is saying "We outlaw this practice for others as we consider it inhumane, but your human right (to practice your religion) is a greater priority."

But whilst circumcision is legal and FGM isn't there are clear freedom of choice/human rights issues as in neither case the decision to have your bits mutilated is not taken by the owner of the bits.

So is FMG part of a religion as some West Africans argue, or is it cultural? If it's religious, why is the practice excluded when the right to endanger your own life or kill an animal without stunning it first not?
And if it's cultural, why is religion given greater priority than culture when it come to the law?

I find FMG highly offensive and whilst for me as a Westerner (and a big fan of clitorises!)  it's a no-brainer to disapprove of it, I might well think that my rights were being taken away if I'd been brought up in a tribe where it had been practiced for time immemorial. And I'd probably be offended by the slur on my mother and grandmother to suggest what they did and had done to them was wrong.

wanderlust wrote:
The second point - you answer yourself. People are attracted to their own communities and some people integrate better than others. But equally some Governments and local authorities use town planning to create minority communities artificially.

I don't think there are any examples of African communities in the UK attempting to force the practice of female genital mutilation on the indigenous community so I don't get what you're saying.

So where do we draw the line? In the UK we do outlaw female genital mutilation - but not circumcision of male babies. We permit halal and kosher butchering techniques - and most indigenous people will eat halal meat - but we don't force people to eat black pudding or drop live lobsters into boiling water.

We might not like everything but that's a two way street and a bit of dialogue and tolerance could go a long way.

My point about FGM was that as you say dialogue and tolerance are important but there comes a point where you have to draw the line. Even though cultures that practice FGM don't tend to proselytise, the practise is illegal here and I would argue it is morally wrong. Tolerance can only go so far and so we do impose our cultural beliefs on people from other cultures who live here. In the same way we should respect foreign cultural norms when we travel abroad even though we may not agree with them.

I'm walking away from this one now.

We've gone from serious political discussion to talking about willies.........yet again.

xmiles wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
The second point - you answer yourself. People are attracted to their own communities and some people integrate better than others. But equally some Governments and local authorities use town planning to create minority communities artificially.

I don't think there are any examples of African communities in the UK attempting to force the practice of female genital mutilation on the indigenous community so I don't get what you're saying.

So where do we draw the line? In the UK we do outlaw female genital mutilation - but not circumcision of male babies. We permit halal and kosher butchering techniques - and most indigenous people will eat halal meat - but we don't force people to eat black pudding or drop live lobsters into boiling water.

We might not like everything but that's a two way street and a bit of dialogue and tolerance could go a long way.

My point about FGM was that as you say dialogue and tolerance are important but there comes a point where you have to draw the line. Even though cultures that practice FGM don't tend to proselytise, the practise is illegal here and I would argue it is morally wrong. Tolerance can only go so far and so we do impose our cultural beliefs on people from other cultures who live here. In the same way we should respect foreign cultural norms when we travel abroad even though we may not agree with them.

I think we're saying the same thing.
What is morally repugnant to them may be perfectly normal practice to us and vice versa.

Unfortunately the British/Western track record of "respecting foreign cultural norms when we travel abroad" is not too clever.

Usually we kill them, conquer them, cause trouble between them, nick their land, abuse their resources, stagger around their towns pissed out of our brains trying to shag their women, shag each other or just lie there in a puddle of vomit. Then we sell them a load of stuff they don't need like rap music, porn and tanks.

Breadman wrote:"Then we sell them a load of stuff they don't need like rap music, porn and tanks."

How can anybody not need all those things?

That sounds like the recipe for a perfect afternoon's fun to me........

Stick some Public Enemy on and noisily discharge your weapon in a built-up area! (In both senses.)

You've never heard Basrah rap have you Mullahf****er?

Dropping bombs all day long.

The best eulogy I have heard about this situation takes us back to the 1970's Northern Irelands.

Hamas is the actively bombing IRA wanting land and "freedom" 
Israel is the UK as in stifling the insurgency with the shoot to kill policy.

I thought about it for a while and it is about the best way of describing the current problem in the Gaza and there are more similarities than differences between the two.

My support are foe the innocents that are caught in the middle of the two.

bwfc71 wrote:The best eulogy I have heard about this situation takes us back to the 1970's Northern Irelands.

Hamas is the actively bombing IRA wanting land and "freedom" 
Israel is the UK as in stifling the insurgency with the shoot to kill policy.

I thought about it for a while and it is about the best way of describing the current problem in the Gaza and there are more similarities than differences between the two.

My support are foe the innocents that are caught in the middle of the two.

Eulogy....?

Are you pissed up already?

It's only 7 o'clock......

Breadman wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:The best eulogy I have heard about this situation takes us back to the 1970's Northern Irelands.

Hamas is the actively bombing IRA wanting land and "freedom" 
Israel is the UK as in stifling the insurgency with the shoot to kill policy.

I thought about it for a while and it is about the best way of describing the current problem in the Gaza and there are more similarities than differences between the two.

My support are foe the innocents that are caught in the middle of the two.

Eulogy....?

Are you pissed up already?

It's only 7 o'clock......

Yep!!

After the day I have had, beer is the order fo the day.

If only all the earths trouble's could be solved by having a good pish-up!

Game on again!! Ffs religion is power!!!!

So is Gaza religious war, economic war, ethnic cleansing or good old fashioned tribalism?

wanderlust wrote:So is Gaza religious war, economic war, ethnic cleansing or good old fashioned tribalism?

I assume that, like most major conflicts, it's all of the above.

wanderlust wrote:So is Gaza religious war, economic war, ethnic cleansing or good old fashioned tribalism?

Who knows? The innocent suffer all in the name of a greater being.

wanderlust wrote:I've met a few Palestinians in my time and like all peoples they're a mixed bunch. Totally understand their desire for an independent Palestinian state - after all they've lived there long before the West created Israel after the War and for the most part co-existed with their Jewish neighbours relatively peacefully.
But somewhere along the line I have trouble understanding why Hamas are so stupid.
Don't they understand that the Israelis are a modern military force with serious weaponry and are backed by the West?

In the current conflict, 53 Israeli soldiers have been killed - and 3 civilians.
At least 1250 Palestinians have died - nearly all civilians.

Even Hamas must be able to see the internet images of Jews enjoying a picnic in the hills watching the firework display as Gaza is bombed to bits?

Surely Hamas should be able to come up with better tactics than firing a few roman candles over the wall or digging tunnels that lead to an open and exposed plain?

If they are able to smuggle those rockets through the blockade into Gaza, they shouldn't have much of a problem (relatively) in taking out a few Israeli cities by poisoning the water supply or blowing up a few power plants. So why walk into the trap that is Gaza and condemn thousands of their own women and children to an inevitable death?

Nine years on and Hamas have finally royally f****d up the lives of their own people as predicted.
We can only pray for a two-state solution.
I started this thread 9 years ago and it's well worth a read of the comments at the time from contributors like Reebok Rebel.

All the stories of children and babies being slaughtered are horrific and things are only going to get worse for Gaza when the ground invasion starts properly.

I've never really had a clue about the fighting between Palestine and Israel before.

Palestine originally took land from Israel that includes the Gaza strip and West Bank?

This is correct?

I'm no expert but as i understand it Israel were given the land that is now classed as Israel after WW2 and the Palestinians were displaced.

karlypants wrote:I've never really had a clue about the fighting between Palestine and Israel before.

Palestine originally took land from Israel that includes the Gaza strip and West Bank?

This is correct?

Both sides have a claim as it goes back thousands of years to when the Jews and the Arabs (who weren't Muslim at the time as the Prophet Mohammed didn't appear on the scene until the early 7th century) used to share the land in the entire region in harmony - the countries didn't exist. The first war was when the Israelites conquered the Arab Canaanites (when Moses had the dream of the promised land of the Jews) and his army escaped the Egyptians (as per the Bible) and displaced the Arabs living there. Lots of land disputes in the intervening years and for 400 years the entire area was part of the Muslim Ottoman Empire but in 1917 the Brits issued a pro-Zionist Balfour declaration, drove out the Ottomans with military force and took administrative  control of the area. The Brits facilitated the relocation of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Europe into Palestine during this period (reminiscent of the Rwanda plan in some ways) and eventually created the State of Israel under pressure from the now established Jews led by (terrorist?) Ben Gurion who objected to British administration. Prior to the Balfour Declaration there were hardly any Jews living in the entire area.
Despite promises and the peace settlement with the Ottomans, we Brits broke our agreement to divide the land and set up a separate Palestinian homeland state but did facilitate the State of Israel - hence the ongoing problems ever since.

PS: Just found a couple of Wiki articles that provide a decent brief summary:

Balfour Declaration

McMahon - Hussein Correspondence