An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
You mean what they were offered in 1947?
No, them being a nation with national consciousness is not tied to any particular boundaries or moment in history
Or do you deny the Scots are a nation?
Who's "them"? There was no Palestinian nation then. There were jews and Arabs living in the area and the UN plan sought to give each a nation.
You should go and meet some Palestinians. They definitely believe that they are a nation (albeit one without a country). They have a national consciousness, with national culture, politics, institutions, media and customs.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
The only reason that there's no Palestinian state is that Egypt and Transjordan (not Israel) invaded in 1947 and murdered it at birth, while trying to murder Israel at birth in the immediate wake of the Holocaust. Thank goodness they failed.
They then tried to murder Israel again, in 1967. Again thank goodness they failed.
Arafat had the opportunity for peace. He turned it down.
Hamas, Iran etc still demand Israel's destruction.
The only way peace may ultimately be attained is if those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist are relocated to Egypt or Jordan (who after all are the nations responsible for Palestine not existing) or Iran.
It's unpleasant but increasingly the only viable path to peace. And that's not Israel's fault, they're the victims here.
I don’t think that’s the only reason, no. Without Zionism and the support of the British for Jewish migration to the area, there wouldn’t ever have been the thought to divide Palestine into two states and an independent Palestine would probably have emerged at the same time as Lebanon, Syria etc. Of course, the British were only there because of the choices made by the Ottoman Empire to ally with Germany in World War I, and the British and French betrayal of the people of the region in not giving them independence after that war.
We also have to look at the way the British departed and the lack of any international willlingness to enforce the 1947 UN plan on both sides. By the way, you say Israel didn’t invade in 1947, but the Israeli military moved with force into areas that did not have a Jewish population and were not allocated to Israel in the 1947 plan, and they forced out at gunpoint the local (Palestinian) population. I’m not certain what to call that if not “invading”.
And, of course, as you allude to, it is the Holocaust and prior European anti-Semitism that drives Zionism and its success over Bundism.
So, it’s a long, complex history. There is not an “only reason”, and it’s naive to claim as such. There have been many atrocities committed by all sides through that history, but the vast majority of the population of Israel and Palestine today weren’t even born in 1947 and are not responsible for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.
Moreover, the suggestion that people be cleansed from an area for their views is to propose a crime against humanity. I think peace does need people to recognise Israel’s existence, but I fail to see why those who disagree should be expelled from where they live. What about those in Israel who don’t think Palestine or Palestinians should exist. Will you expel them too?
Your timing is wrong. Israel accepted 181 and then the Arab nations attacked (all of them). And then during that war the Israelis realised they hadn't been annihilated and actually were winning and hence implemented a plan to do as you say which was to expel Arabs from their villages. Not a great moment in Israeli history but I get it.
Of course you can go back to Sykes Picot, the Balfour Declaration and Moses on the Mount but in recent history it was the Arab.nations response to UN 181 which Israel had accepted which is the key issue.
Nakba my arse.
You acknowledge Palestinians were expelled. That is the Nakba. I’m unclear what you are saying here? The Nakba happened, but it didn’t happen?
This war is also a little foretaste of the "multipolar world", that Beijing and Moscow promise. It's actually a Hobbesian world in a perpetual state of "war of all against all". Autocracies do not bring peace, they bring war - internal and external.
THE DEPARTURE OF SCOTLAND AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE MOMENT IN A TOURNAMENT
To be fair - they are head and shoulders better than England - they have been very badly served by the draw.
Not sure they are head and shoulders, not any more, not if Borthwick manages to use Smith and Arundell as he should. England have also won four out of four, sometimes well, sometimes sketchily, but they keep winning
But this is a good Scottish team, and Finn Russell is world class. I'd actually love to see them boot the arrogant Oirish up the erse; I don't think they will
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
The only reason that there's no Palestinian state is that Egypt and Transjordan (not Israel) invaded in 1947 and murdered it at birth, while trying to murder Israel at birth in the immediate wake of the Holocaust. Thank goodness they failed.
They then tried to murder Israel again, in 1967. Again thank goodness they failed.
Arafat had the opportunity for peace. He turned it down.
Hamas, Iran etc still demand Israel's destruction.
The only way peace may ultimately be attained is if those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist are relocated to Egypt or Jordan (who after all are the nations responsible for Palestine not existing) or Iran.
It's unpleasant but increasingly the only viable path to peace. And that's not Israel's fault, they're the victims here.
I don’t think that’s the only reason, no. Without Zionism and the support of the British for Jewish migration to the area, there wouldn’t ever have been the thought to divide Palestine into two states and an independent Palestine would probably have emerged at the same time as Lebanon, Syria etc. Of course, the British were only there because of the choices made by the Ottoman Empire to ally with Germany in World War I, and the British and French betrayal of the people of the region in not giving them independence after that war.
We also have to look at the way the British departed and the lack of any international willlingness to enforce the 1947 UN plan on both sides. By the way, you say Israel didn’t invade in 1947, but the Israeli military moved with force into areas that did not have a Jewish population and were not allocated to Israel in the 1947 plan, and they forced out at gunpoint the local (Palestinian) population. I’m not certain what to call that if not “invading”.
And, of course, as you allude to, it is the Holocaust and prior European anti-Semitism that drives Zionism and its success over Bundism.
So, it’s a long, complex history. There is not an “only reason”, and it’s naive to claim as such. There have been many atrocities committed by all sides through that history, but the vast majority of the population of Israel and Palestine today weren’t even born in 1947 and are not responsible for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.
Moreover, the suggestion that people be cleansed from an area for their views is to propose a crime against humanity. I think peace does need people to recognise Israel’s existence, but I fail to see why those who disagree should be expelled from where they live. What about those in Israel who don’t think Palestine or Palestinians should exist. Will you expel them too?
Your timing is wrong. Israel accepted 181 and then the Arab nations attacked (all of them). And then during that war the Israelis realised they hadn't been annihilated and actually were winning and hence implemented a plan to do as you say which was to expel Arabs from their villages. Not a great moment in Israeli history but I get it.
Of course you can go back to Sykes Picot, the Balfour Declaration and Moses on the Mount but in recent history it was the Arab.nations response to UN 181 which Israel had accepted which is the key issue.
Nakba my arse.
You write as though the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab governments were bad in some way for not accepting UN resolution 181. What's the logic that leads to the conclusion that the Arabs should have accepted it, and further that they shouldn't complain too much about what then happened? Is it that Britain, which still ran the place in 1947, accepted it, therefore Arabs should have done?
You might as well say the only reason the Israelis have settled so many people on territory conquered in 1967, in utter contempt for international law, was because the Arab population didn't lie down and play doggo 20 years before when the UN put out a resolution honouring the Balfour promise. Shame on both Balfour and the UN.
Not sure why you say nakba your arse. There was a catastrophe for the Arab population.
An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
You mean what they were offered in 1947?
No, them being a nation with national consciousness is not tied to any particular boundaries or moment in history
Or do you deny the Scots are a nation?
Who's "them"? There was no Palestinian nation then. There were jews and Arabs living in the area and the UN plan sought to give each a nation.
You should go and meet some Palestinians. They definitely believe that they are a nation (albeit one without a country). They have a national consciousness, with national culture, politics, institutions, media and customs.
The Scots believe such stuff too, and quite clearly they are just squatting in a bit of North England that we haven't bothered to deal with yet. Much as the French lurk in east English territory.
THE DEPARTURE OF SCOTLAND AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE MOMENT IN A TOURNAMENT
This Scotland team is good - perhaps the best Scotland ever. I think you're right, but I've risked 21 of my English pounds laying the more successful insurrectionists at 1.21.
Certainly as good as the Scotland side of the early nineties.
I’ve been following rugby since the mid seventies. This is the best Ireland side I’ve seen in that time.
Biden really is crap at this stuff....read through the autocue at 1.5x speed like an sixth former giving their very first public speech, before ignoring any questions while wandering off very slowly behind a screen.
An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
You mean what they were offered in 1947?
No, them being a nation with national consciousness is not tied to any particular boundaries or moment in history
Or do you deny the Scots are a nation?
Who's "them"? There was no Palestinian nation then. There were jews and Arabs living in the area and the UN plan sought to give each a nation.
You should go and meet some Palestinians. They definitely believe that they are a nation (albeit one without a country). They have a national consciousness, with national culture, politics, institutions, media and customs.
The Scots believe such stuff too, and quite clearly they are just squatting in a bit of North England that we haven't bothered to deal with yet. Much as the French lurk in east English territory.
Point of order: the Fremch are camped out not in the east but in the south England, surely? The bit south of the channel.
"Israel Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant: “Today we saw the face of evil. The Hamas [terrorist organization] has launched a brutal attack against the citizens of the State of Israel - attacking men, women, children and the elderly, indiscriminately. Hamas will understand very quickly that it has made a mistake - a grave mistake, and will pay a [heavy] price.
Fifteen years ago, as Head of the Southern Command, I came close to 'breaking the neck' [destroying] of Hamas. I was stopped by the political echelon. This phenomenon will not continue. We will change reality on the ground in Gaza for the next 50 years. What was before, will be no more. We will operate at full force.
I ask Israel's citizens to remain determined and to support our security forces.”"
An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
You mean what they were offered in 1947?
No, them being a nation with national consciousness is not tied to any particular boundaries or moment in history
Or do you deny the Scots are a nation?
Who's "them"? There was no Palestinian nation then. There were jews and Arabs living in the area and the UN plan sought to give each a nation.
You should go and meet some Palestinians. They definitely believe that they are a nation (albeit one without a country). They have a national consciousness, with national culture, politics, institutions, media and customs.
The Scots believe such stuff too, and quite clearly they are just squatting in a bit of North England that we haven't bothered to deal with yet. Much as the French lurk in east English territory.
Point of order: the Fremch are camped out not in the east but in the south England, surely? The bit south of the channel.
An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
You mean what they were offered in 1947?
No, them being a nation with national consciousness is not tied to any particular boundaries or moment in history
Or do you deny the Scots are a nation?
Who's "them"? There was no Palestinian nation then. There were jews and Arabs living in the area and the UN plan sought to give each a nation.
You should go and meet some Palestinians. They definitely believe that they are a nation (albeit one without a country). They have a national consciousness, with national culture, politics, institutions, media and customs.
The Scots believe such stuff too, and quite clearly they are just squatting in a bit of North England that we haven't bothered to deal with yet. Much as the French lurk in east English territory.
Point of order: the Fremch are camped out not in the east but in the south England, surely? The bit south of the channel.
There is certainly plenty of them "occupying" large parts of West London.
An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
You mean what they were offered in 1947?
No, them being a nation with national consciousness is not tied to any particular boundaries or moment in history
Or do you deny the Scots are a nation?
Who's "them"? There was no Palestinian nation then. There were jews and Arabs living in the area and the UN plan sought to give each a nation.
You should go and meet some Palestinians. They definitely believe that they are a nation (albeit one without a country). They have a national consciousness, with national culture, politics, institutions, media and customs.
The Scots believe such stuff too, and quite clearly they are just squatting in a bit of North England that we haven't bothered to deal with yet. Much as the French lurk in east English territory.
Point of order: the Fremch are camped out not in the east but in the south England, surely? The bit south of the channel.
All that lot, and the ones in London are just paid informers. Where do you imagine the national debt comes from? Your Englishman can of course provide for his family, finance railways, build aircraft carriers, and have money left over for ineffective attempts at great cost to acquire mistresses.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
The only reason that there's no Palestinian state is that Egypt and Transjordan (not Israel) invaded in 1947 and murdered it at birth, while trying to murder Israel at birth in the immediate wake of the Holocaust. Thank goodness they failed.
They then tried to murder Israel again, in 1967. Again thank goodness they failed.
Arafat had the opportunity for peace. He turned it down.
Hamas, Iran etc still demand Israel's destruction.
The only way peace may ultimately be attained is if those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist are relocated to Egypt or Jordan (who after all are the nations responsible for Palestine not existing) or Iran.
It's unpleasant but increasingly the only viable path to peace. And that's not Israel's fault, they're the victims here.
I don’t think that’s the only reason, no. Without Zionism and the support of the British for Jewish migration to the area, there wouldn’t ever have been the thought to divide Palestine into two states and an independent Palestine would probably have emerged at the same time as Lebanon, Syria etc. Of course, the British were only there because of the choices made by the Ottoman Empire to ally with Germany in World War I, and the British and French betrayal of the people of the region in not giving them independence after that war.
We also have to look at the way the British departed and the lack of any international willlingness to enforce the 1947 UN plan on both sides. By the way, you say Israel didn’t invade in 1947, but the Israeli military moved with force into areas that did not have a Jewish population and were not allocated to Israel in the 1947 plan, and they forced out at gunpoint the local (Palestinian) population. I’m not certain what to call that if not “invading”.
And, of course, as you allude to, it is the Holocaust and prior European anti-Semitism that drives Zionism and its success over Bundism.
So, it’s a long, complex history. There is not an “only reason”, and it’s naive to claim as such. There have been many atrocities committed by all sides through that history, but the vast majority of the population of Israel and Palestine today weren’t even born in 1947 and are not responsible for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.
Moreover, the suggestion that people be cleansed from an area for their views is to propose a crime against humanity. I think peace does need people to recognise Israel’s existence, but I fail to see why those who disagree should be expelled from where they live. What about those in Israel who don’t think Palestine or Palestinians should exist. Will you expel them too?
Your timing is wrong. Israel accepted 181 and then the Arab nations attacked (all of them). And then during that war the Israelis realised they hadn't been annihilated and actually were winning and hence implemented a plan to do as you say which was to expel Arabs from their villages. Not a great moment in Israeli history but I get it.
Of course you can go back to Sykes Picot, the Balfour Declaration and Moses on the Mount but in recent history it was the Arab.nations response to UN 181 which Israel had accepted which is the key issue.
Nakba my arse.
You acknowledge Palestinians were expelled. That is the Nakba. I’m unclear what you are saying here? The Nakba happened, but it didn’t happen?
All Arab nations invaded and then Israel said no fuck you. Like that extra slap an intended mugging victim gives their souls be mugger.
The counter factual is that when Sharon handed over Gaza the Palestinians had ceased military action against Israel and dedicated themselves to become, say oh I don't know, Singapore on Jordan.
Think of the UN/US/World Bank billions that would have been poured in.
But no - they wanted to push Israel into the sea. Perhaps giving them Gaza was seen as a victory for violence. As Abba Eban noted and how true it seems to be, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
They can't become Singapore on Jordan, because Israel (understandably) doesn't allow Gaza to have an airport, and for the last 18 years has blockaded the small port of Gaza.
So, there's no possibility of industry emerging.
Read what I wrote.
My point being this is because they have never renounced violence.
Look, if we're all going to start reading other people's comments before we respond, then where would the site be?
It would be bedlam. Cats would be marrying dogs. And the center wouldn't be able to hold.
An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
You mean what they were offered in 1947?
No, them being a nation with national consciousness is not tied to any particular boundaries or moment in history
Or do you deny the Scots are a nation?
Who's "them"? There was no Palestinian nation then. There were jews and Arabs living in the area and the UN plan sought to give each a nation.
You should go and meet some Palestinians. They definitely believe that they are a nation (albeit one without a country). They have a national consciousness, with national culture, politics, institutions, media and customs.
The Scots believe such stuff too, and quite clearly they are just squatting in a bit of North England that we haven't bothered to deal with yet. Much as the French lurk in east English territory.
Point of order: the Fremch are camped out not in the east but in the south England, surely? The bit south of the channel.
There is certainly plenty of them "occupying" large parts of West London.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
The only reason that there's no Palestinian state is that Egypt and Transjordan (not Israel) invaded in 1947 and murdered it at birth, while trying to murder Israel at birth in the immediate wake of the Holocaust. Thank goodness they failed.
They then tried to murder Israel again, in 1967. Again thank goodness they failed.
Arafat had the opportunity for peace. He turned it down.
Hamas, Iran etc still demand Israel's destruction.
The only way peace may ultimately be attained is if those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist are relocated to Egypt or Jordan (who after all are the nations responsible for Palestine not existing) or Iran.
It's unpleasant but increasingly the only viable path to peace. And that's not Israel's fault, they're the victims here.
I don’t think that’s the only reason, no. Without Zionism and the support of the British for Jewish migration to the area, there wouldn’t ever have been the thought to divide Palestine into two states and an independent Palestine would probably have emerged at the same time as Lebanon, Syria etc. Of course, the British were only there because of the choices made by the Ottoman Empire to ally with Germany in World War I, and the British and French betrayal of the people of the region in not giving them independence after that war.
We also have to look at the way the British departed and the lack of any international willlingness to enforce the 1947 UN plan on both sides. By the way, you say Israel didn’t invade in 1947, but the Israeli military moved with force into areas that did not have a Jewish population and were not allocated to Israel in the 1947 plan, and they forced out at gunpoint the local (Palestinian) population. I’m not certain what to call that if not “invading”.
And, of course, as you allude to, it is the Holocaust and prior European anti-Semitism that drives Zionism and its success over Bundism.
So, it’s a long, complex history. There is not an “only reason”, and it’s naive to claim as such. There have been many atrocities committed by all sides through that history, but the vast majority of the population of Israel and Palestine today weren’t even born in 1947 and are not responsible for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.
Moreover, the suggestion that people be cleansed from an area for their views is to propose a crime against humanity. I think peace does need people to recognise Israel’s existence, but I fail to see why those who disagree should be expelled from where they live. What about those in Israel who don’t think Palestine or Palestinians should exist. Will you expel them too?
Your timing is wrong. Israel accepted 181 and then the Arab nations attacked (all of them). And then during that war the Israelis realised they hadn't been annihilated and actually were winning and hence implemented a plan to do as you say which was to expel Arabs from their villages. Not a great moment in Israeli history but I get it.
Of course you can go back to Sykes Picot, the Balfour Declaration and Moses on the Mount but in recent history it was the Arab.nations response to UN 181 which Israel had accepted which is the key issue.
Nakba my arse.
You acknowledge Palestinians were expelled. That is the Nakba. I’m unclear what you are saying here? The Nakba happened, but it didn’t happen?
All Arab nations invaded and then Israel said no fuck you. Like that extra slap an intended mugging victim gives their souls be mugger.
You are, to use the vernacular, victim blaming.
You didn’t answer the question. The Nakba happened. Not sure what you gain from attempting to change the subject.
"Israel Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant: “Today we saw the face of evil. The Hamas [terrorist organization] has launched a brutal attack against the citizens of the State of Israel - attacking men, women, children and the elderly, indiscriminately. Hamas will understand very quickly that it has made a mistake - a grave mistake, and will pay a [heavy] price.
Fifteen years ago, as Head of the Southern Command, I came close to 'breaking the neck' [destroying] of Hamas. I was stopped by the political echelon. This phenomenon will not continue. We will change reality on the ground in Gaza for the next 50 years. What was before, will be no more. We will operate at full force.
I ask Israel's citizens to remain determined and to support our security forces.”"
Prediction: Israel is going to occupy Gaza, slaughter thousands, and lay the groundwork for permanent ethnc cleansing: Nakba 2.0
And the tragedy is that that's both utterly rational and totally idiotic. Rational because of the provocation of Hama's, which was just plain wrong. Idiotic because its a denial of why Israel happened. Remember you were strangers in a strange land...
There is no way out of this that doesn't involve someone giving up on a perfectly justified claim. And who is in a position to do that?
In Britain, the Foreign Office has reportedly argued against efforts to blacklist Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, despite the MI5 director-general saying there had been 10 Iranian plots to kidnap or murder British residents in 2022.
Star Wars didn't have a dog that started with the letter N though
Depends which edition of the Dambusters you watch.
I also wonder what is happening at Scampton now it is being turned into a concentration centre for migrants, with all the contractors illegally* digging holes here and there and everywhere with no regard for heritage. Not seen a recent update, but it would be ironic if our UKG ends up resurrecting the pooch in question.
*As in: sans planning permission or permission to modify listed remains, the last I heard.
Really distressing film of a captured Israeli girl brutalised in a way which I am not going to describe. You can certainly guess. So upsetting. Always always it is women, children, the vulnerable who suffer.
Joe Biden is considering a “one-and-done” spending bill to fund the war in Ukraine until the next presidential election in an attempt to overcome an impasse with Republicans, The Telegraph understands.
The White House is drawing up plans to ask Congress to release its largest funding package ever for weapons and humanitarian aid, amid concern continued rows over spending could damage the president in next year’s election.
The counter factual is that when Sharon handed over Gaza the Palestinians had ceased military action against Israel and dedicated themselves to become, say oh I don't know, Singapore on Jordan.
Think of the UN/US/World Bank billions that would have been poured in.
But no - they wanted to push Israel into the sea. Perhaps giving them Gaza was seen as a victory for violence. As Abba Eban noted and how true it seems to be, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
They can't become Singapore on Jordan, because Israel (understandably) doesn't allow Gaza to have an airport, and for the last 18 years has blockaded the small port of Gaza.
So, there's no possibility of industry emerging.
Read what I wrote.
My point being this is because they have never renounced violence.
Look, if we're all going to start reading other people's comments before we respond, then where would the site be?
It would be bedlam. Cats would be marrying dogs. And the center wouldn't be able to hold.
I think I need to start selling the Malmesbury Plan for peace - “Fill the Med, not Graves”
Perhaps start issuing Collateralised Elderly Relative Obligations as OTCs to fund this?
Really distressing film of a captured Israeli girl brutalised in a way which I am not going to describe. You can certainly guess. So upsetting. Always always it is women, children, the vulnerable who suffer.
Time to switch off the news I think.
I saw it. And it is disgusting
Also this:
"Noa was partying in the south of Israel in a peace music festival when Hams terrorists kidnapped her and dragged her from Israel into Gaza.
In Britain, the Foreign Office has reportedly argued against efforts to blacklist Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, despite the MI5 director-general saying there had been 10 Iranian plots to kidnap or murder British residents in 2022.
Those who appeal to the UN are right to remind us that -- in recent decades -- the UN has worked to increase the conflict between Israel, and those who support Islamic terror. I think those who support democracy and peace will, more and more, look to other institutions to achieve it.
(I assume some of the commenters here didn't realize they were making that argument, but the facts support it.)
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
The only reason that there's no Palestinian state is that Egypt and Transjordan (not Israel) invaded in 1947 and murdered it at birth, while trying to murder Israel at birth in the immediate wake of the Holocaust. Thank goodness they failed.
They then tried to murder Israel again, in 1967. Again thank goodness they failed.
Arafat had the opportunity for peace. He turned it down.
Hamas, Iran etc still demand Israel's destruction.
The only way peace may ultimately be attained is if those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist are relocated to Egypt or Jordan (who after all are the nations responsible for Palestine not existing) or Iran.
It's unpleasant but increasingly the only viable path to peace. And that's not Israel's fault, they're the victims here.
I don’t think that’s the only reason, no. Without Zionism and the support of the British for Jewish migration to the area, there wouldn’t ever have been the thought to divide Palestine into two states and an independent Palestine would probably have emerged at the same time as Lebanon, Syria etc. Of course, the British were only there because of the choices made by the Ottoman Empire to ally with Germany in World War I, and the British and French betrayal of the people of the region in not giving them independence after that war.
We also have to look at the way the British departed and the lack of any international willlingness to enforce the 1947 UN plan on both sides. By the way, you say Israel didn’t invade in 1947, but the Israeli military moved with force into areas that did not have a Jewish population and were not allocated to Israel in the 1947 plan, and they forced out at gunpoint the local (Palestinian) population. I’m not certain what to call that if not “invading”.
And, of course, as you allude to, it is the Holocaust and prior European anti-Semitism that drives Zionism and its success over Bundism.
So, it’s a long, complex history. There is not an “only reason”, and it’s naive to claim as such. There have been many atrocities committed by all sides through that history, but the vast majority of the population of Israel and Palestine today weren’t even born in 1947 and are not responsible for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.
Moreover, the suggestion that people be cleansed from an area for their views is to propose a crime against humanity. I think peace does need people to recognise Israel’s existence, but I fail to see why those who disagree should be expelled from where they live. What about those in Israel who don’t think Palestine or Palestinians should exist. Will you expel them too?
Your timing is wrong. Israel accepted 181 and then the Arab nations attacked (all of them). And then during that war the Israelis realised they hadn't been annihilated and actually were winning and hence implemented a plan to do as you say which was to expel Arabs from their villages. Not a great moment in Israeli history but I get it.
Of course you can go back to Sykes Picot, the Balfour Declaration and Moses on the Mount but in recent history it was the Arab.nations response to UN 181 which Israel had accepted which is the key issue.
Nakba my arse.
You write as though the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab governments were bad in some way for not accepting UN resolution 181. What's the logic that leads to the conclusion that the Arabs should have accepted it, and further that they shouldn't complain too much about what then happened? Is it that Britain, which still ran the place in 1947, accepted it, therefore Arabs should have done?
You might as well say the only reason the Israelis have settled so many people on territory conquered in 1967, in utter contempt for international law, was because the Arab population didn't lie down and play doggo 20 years before when the UN put out a resolution honouring the Balfour promise. Shame on both Balfour and the UN.
Not sure why you say nakba your arse. There was a catastrophe for the Arab population.
The nakba was terrible for the Arab population, but what's rarely mentioned by those citing it is that what were once substantial Jewish populations of many Arab states are now pretty much non-existent. There were 100,000 in Tunisia in 1948. Now 1,000. 75,000 in Egypt, now there are three. Not 3,000. Three. None left in Libya and Gaddafi confiscated all Jewish property. Iran's Jews down from 150,000 to 8,500. Many of the Middle Eastern Jews who arrived in Israel didn't have much choice in the matter either and were fleeing persecution or death.
Really distressing film of a captured Israeli girl brutalised in a way which I am not going to describe. You can certainly guess. So upsetting. Always always it is women, children, the vulnerable who suffer.
Time to switch off the news I think.
Today has been a good day to stay away from the news and the internet in general. .
Really distressing film of a captured Israeli girl brutalised in a way which I am not going to describe. You can certainly guess. So upsetting. Always always it is women, children, the vulnerable who suffer.
Time to switch off the news I think.
I saw it. And it is disgusting
Also this:
"Noa was partying in the south of Israel in a peace music festival when Hams terrorists kidnapped her and dragged her from Israel into Gaza.
Judging by what we have seen so far, she will certainly be gangraped and then likely killed
I am really not sure what Hamas are thinking. Really absolutely horrified at the images on X. There’s absolutely nothing in their actions that warm anyone to their cause, and if anything now hardens the case against them.
ורמי הביטחון יזהירו בעוד כמה דקות את שרי הקבינט: מזהים ניסיון של חמאס לרתום את ערביי ישראל למלחמה ולאחד את הזירות כמו בשומר החומות
Translated from Hebrew
The security officials will warn the cabinet ministers in a few minutes: they recognize an attempt by Hamas to harness the Israeli Arabs to war and unite the arenas as in the Guardian of the Walls
Really distressing film of a captured Israeli girl brutalised in a way which I am not going to describe. You can certainly guess. So upsetting. Always always it is women, children, the vulnerable who suffer.
Time to switch off the news I think.
I saw it. And it is disgusting
Also this:
"Noa was partying in the south of Israel in a peace music festival when Hams terrorists kidnapped her and dragged her from Israel into Gaza.
Judging by what we have seen so far, she will certainly be gangraped and then likely killed
You have just made me feel physically sick
I recall the moment after the Arafat peace accord, that we were the first coach of international travellers to enter Jericho and as our Jewish guide embraced the Palestinian soldier on the walls a spontaneous round of applause broke out as it was a very special moment as peace seemed possible
All Arab nations invaded and then Israel said no fuck you. Like that extra slap an intended mugging victim gives their souls be mugger.
You are, to use the vernacular, victim blaming.
I've no direct experience but I sub to Haaretz, the centrist Israeli newspaper, and they say that Netanyahu has moved the country close to the apartheid that opponents used to falsely accuse them of.
It's perfectly reasonable to oppose both Hamas's murderous rampage and the Israeli Government policies which give Hamas a larger following. We don't have to pick a side and cheer them on as if they were football teams.
All Arab nations invaded and then Israel said no fuck you. Like that extra slap an intended mugging victim gives their souls be mugger.
You are, to use the vernacular, victim blaming.
I've no direct experience but I sub to Haaretz, the centrist Israeli newspaper, and they say that Netanyahu has moved the country close to the apartheid that opponents used to falsely accuse them of.
It's perfectly reasonable to oppose both Hamas's murderous rampage and the Israeli Government policies which give Hamas a larger following. We don't have to pick a side and cheer them on as if they were football teams.
Really distressing film of a captured Israeli girl brutalised in a way which I am not going to describe. You can certainly guess. So upsetting. Always always it is women, children, the vulnerable who suffer.
Time to switch off the news I think.
Today has been a good day to stay away from the news and the internet in general. .
Both of you - have a picture of my cat in her new favourite box.
Really distressing film of a captured Israeli girl brutalised in a way which I am not going to describe. You can certainly guess. So upsetting. Always always it is women, children, the vulnerable who suffer.
Time to switch off the news I think.
I saw it. And it is disgusting
Also this:
"Noa was partying in the south of Israel in a peace music festival when Hams terrorists kidnapped her and dragged her from Israel into Gaza.
Judging by what we have seen so far, she will certainly be gangraped and then likely killed
I am really not sure what Hamas are thinking. Really absolutely horrified at the images on X. There’s absolutely nothing in their actions that warm anyone to their cause, and if anything now hardens the case against them.
Just sickening
Scupper the tentative normalisation of relations with Arab states that Iran want to stop. They don't care how many die, just as long as Israel have to respond in a way that makes it almost impossible for other Arab states to normalise relations and move towards peace.
An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
You mean what they were offered in 1947?
No, them being a nation with national consciousness is not tied to any particular boundaries or moment in history
Or do you deny the Scots are a nation?
Who's "them"? There was no Palestinian nation then. There were jews and Arabs living in the area and the UN plan sought to give each a nation.
You should go and meet some Palestinians. They definitely believe that they are a nation (albeit one without a country). They have a national consciousness, with national culture, politics, institutions, media and customs.
The Palestinians I know (mostly living in exile due to Hamas et al) agree - but not with the way the place is run or how any settlement with Israel comes about.
An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
You mean what they were offered in 1947?
No, them being a nation with national consciousness is not tied to any particular boundaries or moment in history
Or do you deny the Scots are a nation?
Who's "them"? There was no Palestinian nation then. There were jews and Arabs living in the area and the UN plan sought to give each a nation.
You should go and meet some Palestinians. They definitely believe that they are a nation (albeit one without a country). They have a national consciousness, with national culture, politics, institutions, media and customs.
The Palestinians I know (mostly living in exile due to Hamas et al) agree - but not with the way the place is run or how any settlement with Israel comes about.
Certainly so. A lot of us do not feel adequately represented by our leaders.
Really distressing film of a captured Israeli girl brutalised in a way which I am not going to describe. You can certainly guess. So upsetting. Always always it is women, children, the vulnerable who suffer.
Time to switch off the news I think.
Today has been a good day to stay away from the news and the internet in general. .
Both of you - have a picture of my cat in her new favourite box.
(Admittedly resized into obscurity by PB/Vanilla)
Your cat appears to be in a snakeskin bag. Not an obvious fashion choice for a feline, but there y'go.
Really distressing film of a captured Israeli girl brutalised in a way which I am not going to describe. You can certainly guess. So upsetting. Always always it is women, children, the vulnerable who suffer.
Time to switch off the news I think.
Today has been a good day to stay away from the news and the internet in general. .
Both of you - have a picture of my cat in her new favourite box.
(Admittedly resized into obscurity by PB/Vanilla)
Your cat appears to be in a snakeskin bag. Not an obvious fashion choice for a feline, but there y'go.
It's like 'shreddies' - but made of cardboard. If it was a bit bigger I'd join her - looks proper toastie.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
The only reason that there's no Palestinian state is that Egypt and Transjordan (not Israel) invaded in 1947 and murdered it at birth, while trying to murder Israel at birth in the immediate wake of the Holocaust. Thank goodness they failed.
They then tried to murder Israel again, in 1967. Again thank goodness they failed.
Arafat had the opportunity for peace. He turned it down.
Hamas, Iran etc still demand Israel's destruction.
The only way peace may ultimately be attained is if those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist are relocated to Egypt or Jordan (who after all are the nations responsible for Palestine not existing) or Iran.
It's unpleasant but increasingly the only viable path to peace. And that's not Israel's fault, they're the victims here.
I don’t think that’s the only reason, no. Without Zionism and the support of the British for Jewish migration to the area, there wouldn’t ever have been the thought to divide Palestine into two states and an independent Palestine would probably have emerged at the same time as Lebanon, Syria etc. Of course, the British were only there because of the choices made by the Ottoman Empire to ally with Germany in World War I, and the British and French betrayal of the people of the region in not giving them independence after that war.
We also have to look at the way the British departed and the lack of any international willlingness to enforce the 1947 UN plan on both sides. By the way, you say Israel didn’t invade in 1947, but the Israeli military moved with force into areas that did not have a Jewish population and were not allocated to Israel in the 1947 plan, and they forced out at gunpoint the local (Palestinian) population. I’m not certain what to call that if not “invading”.
And, of course, as you allude to, it is the Holocaust and prior European anti-Semitism that drives Zionism and its success over Bundism.
So, it’s a long, complex history. There is not an “only reason”, and it’s naive to claim as such. There have been many atrocities committed by all sides through that history, but the vast majority of the population of Israel and Palestine today weren’t even born in 1947 and are not responsible for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.
Moreover, the suggestion that people be cleansed from an area for their views is to propose a crime against humanity. I think peace does need people to recognise Israel’s existence, but I fail to see why those who disagree should be expelled from where they live. What about those in Israel who don’t think Palestine or Palestinians should exist. Will you expel them too?
Your timing is wrong. Israel accepted 181 and then the Arab nations attacked (all of them). And then during that war the Israelis realised they hadn't been annihilated and actually were winning and hence implemented a plan to do as you say which was to expel Arabs from their villages. Not a great moment in Israeli history but I get it.
Of course you can go back to Sykes Picot, the Balfour Declaration and Moses on the Mount but in recent history it was the Arab.nations response to UN 181 which Israel had accepted which is the key issue.
Nakba my arse.
You acknowledge Palestinians were expelled. That is the Nakba. I’m unclear what you are saying here? The Nakba happened, but it didn’t happen?
All Arab nations invaded and then Israel said no fuck you. Like that extra slap an intended mugging victim gives their souls be mugger.
You are, to use the vernacular, victim blaming.
You didn’t answer the question. The Nakba happened. Not sure what you gain from attempting to change the subject.
No it didn't. It happened as much as the store owner being robbed hit the robber with a baseball bat.
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?
TRANSCRIPT:
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them......
There are plenty of Israelis with genocidal intentions towards the Arabs, though.
Half the Israeli cabinet, by the looks of it.
But its not in their constitution......
At the end of the day, Israel is still a kind of democracy, and I’ll defend its right to exist and indeed to defend itself.
I just don’t think the essay you cite is very helpful. There are many good, decent and innocent Arabs, and it is impossible to understand Hamas without considering the broader history of state-sponsored persecution by Israel.
The whole situation reeks of an abusive relationship. The incoherent male standing over the beaten woman saying, “look what you made me do.”
And, like a lot of men, Israel believes it to be true. A couple can separate. Two peoples who want to live on the same land? Tricky.
Israel is the woman in that analogy presumably?
They have been the ones beaten and attacked consistently from the Holocaust through to today without interruption by those who deny their right to even exist.
No they are the man. It’s a long time since Israel was the plucky David against Goliath. I was brought up reading the books of Leon Uris and had huge sympathy and admiration for Israel. But the last few decades have changed that.
No, Israel is the woman still and is still the David.
The Arab world that surrounds them is the Goliath.
Israel has no desire for conflict or to exterminate the Arabs. The same can not be said in reverse, the policy of those attacking them, uninterrupted from the Nazis to today, is quite openly and literally their extermination.
Just as they don't allow themselves to be exterminated, does not make themselves an aggressor.
Your logic is like saying if a woman is consistently attacked by a man who is openly seeking to rape her, but she knows Krav Maga and can overpower him every time, that makes her the aggressor.
No, she's still the victim. As is Israel. If people stop trying to wipe Jews and the only Jewish country on the planet off the map that may change, but it's never changed yet.
The attitude of those seeking to wipe Israel and Jews off the planet is like the IRA saying "we only need to be lucky once". Israel has every right to defend herself.
Nice story Mike of a different time. If any of my kids had wanted to go to Gaza as students I think I would have had heart failure. Of course, they didn't. Several parts of the world are now just too dangerous, even for adventurous types. The available world is getting smaller.
Though bigger too. Places like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were off limits once, as were Algeria, Colombia, even China when I was young. All on the tourist trail now.
I missed out on Kashmir in 1990 when the troubles blew up, and wished that I had got there a year earlier.
What Hamas are up to is barbaric, but the history of mutual atrocity in Israel and Palestine has shown that no atrocity is too brutal. No doubt the Israeli revenge will be taken on women and civilians too.
Once again.
Equivalent between brutal terrorists torturing women and a trained professional army.
There are very likely to be civilian casualties as a result of any Israeli action. That will be unfortunate and we can argue that Israel should do their best to minimise them. I am sure they will, within the constraints of their military calculus (which is different to ours)
But this is not “revenge”. It is not “torture”. It is not an “atrocity”.
Your false equivalence is the failing of the West. It enables the evil that is Hamas.
You should be ashamed
Israel does not have a professional army, it has a conscript army.
Professionally trained, operating professionally. Not in the narrow sense of contracted.
I’m well aware of the pros and cons of the IDF.
But not, apparently, of its structure.
Of course I am aware of the structure.
I was issuing* professional in its alternative sense.
Or 'incorrectly,' as it is sometimes also called.
The whole point of the Israeli army is that it *isn't* professional. It may be professionally trained, but that is a rather separate issue.
You could almost make a case that in this war it's Hamas actually has the professional army, but its actions are hardly a model of professionalism.
*I'm assuming this is autocorrect having fun at your expense.
And my point - as I clarified when you first asked the question - was about training and operation.
You seem to ignore this and keep going “you’re wrong professional also means something else”.
Yes, it does have an alternative meaning. And no, it is not a relevant point that you are repeatedly making.
An impossible situation with no good outcomes. But thank God Trump isn’t in the White House today.
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
A one-state solution where both communities can live and pray where they want. Crazy idea, I confess!
Israel wouldn't accept that. While around 21% of Israelis are Arabs, addition of the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza would give a 52% majority of Arabs in the single state created.
There is no way Israel would accept Palestinians as fellow citizens. A two state solution is the only viable one, but they cannot be Bantustans and walled ghettos.
2 state solution is a bit of a misnomer.
Which 2 states should they be?
Israel and Jordan? Israel and Egypt? Israel and Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia?
And what do you intend to do with the other states that already exist?
Israel and Palestine.
Or do you deny that Palestinians are a nation with national consciousness?
Yes.
They are Arabs that were part of Jordan and Egypt when Israel took the land off Egypt and Jordan.
If a peaceful solution can be agreed then great, I'd love that. But if it can't, they should return to Egypt and Jordan and Israel should live in peace as the sole state on that land.
What a hypocrite! You complain at those who won’t recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist, but you serve up nonsense denying the Palestinians exist!
In 1948, there were many people living in mandatory Palestine: Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, Arab, Dom, Bedouin. The UN proposed two states, but there was a war, won by the new state of Israel, but with the ethnic cleansing of their opponents. At the end of that, territory was divided between Israel, Jordan and Egypt, but the Palestinians still had a national identity that has been repeatedly recognised by the UN, and indeed by the state of Israel.
The Palestinians are often cast as Arabs, ergo as outsiders to the area, but the Muslim and Christian Palestinians are mostly the descendants of the people who have been there since Roman times and before. They are the descendants of the ancient Israelites who converted to Christianity and later Islam centuries ago. Not that dwelling on the deep past is going to provide solutions. Those have to come from the people of today, who were mostly born after 1948. Indeed, most of the Palestinians today were born after the 1967 war.
Except that Israel is quite literally the only Jewish state on the planet. I absolutely do not deny the right of the Arabs to have a state to exist, they have multiple.
If a state called Palestine can live side-by-side with Israel, then great, but that's not in Israel's hands alone its Hamas etc who are insisting on genocide, not Israel.
But if they can't, but Jordan and Egypt can, then those can be the states. As they were from 1948 onwards anyway.
Nice story Mike of a different time. If any of my kids had wanted to go to Gaza as students I think I would have had heart failure. Of course, they didn't. Several parts of the world are now just too dangerous, even for adventurous types. The available world is getting smaller.
Though bigger too. Places like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were off limits once, as were Algeria, Colombia, even China when I was young. All on the tourist trail now.
I missed out on Kashmir in 1990 when the troubles blew up, and wished that I had got there a year earlier.
What Hamas are up to is barbaric, but the history of mutual atrocity in Israel and Palestine has shown that no atrocity is too brutal. No doubt the Israeli revenge will be taken on women and civilians too.
Once again.
Equivalent between brutal terrorists torturing women and a trained professional army.
There are very likely to be civilian casualties as a result of any Israeli action. That will be unfortunate and we can argue that Israel should do their best to minimise them. I am sure they will, within the constraints of their military calculus (which is different to ours)
But this is not “revenge”. It is not “torture”. It is not an “atrocity”.
Your false equivalence is the failing of the West. It enables the evil that is Hamas.
You should be ashamed
Israel does not have a professional army, it has a conscript army.
Professionally trained, operating professionally. Not in the narrow sense of contracted.
I’m well aware of the pros and cons of the IDF.
But not, apparently, of its structure.
Of course I am aware of the structure.
I was issuing* professional in its alternative sense.
Or 'incorrectly,' as it is sometimes also called.
The whole point of the Israeli army is that it *isn't* professional. It may be professionally trained, but that is a rather separate issue.
You could almost make a case that in this war it's Hamas actually has the professional army, but its actions are hardly a model of professionalism.
*I'm assuming this is autocorrect having fun at your expense.
And my point - as I clarified when you first asked the question - was about training and operation.
You seem to ignore this and keep going “you’re wrong professional also means something else”.
Yes, it does have an alternative meaning. And no, it is not a relevant point that you are repeatedly making.
No, you're still wrong. And my point is entirely relevant, because it reveals your lack of understanding of the situation.
Rather than be so defensive, maybe do some actual research.
Comments
And once he is elected leader, our fellow countrymen will dutifully vote him in anyway, as they did Michael.
https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1710596318253429077?s=46
But this is a good Scottish team, and Finn Russell is world class. I'd actually love to see them boot the arrogant Oirish up the erse; I don't think they will
You might as well say the only reason the Israelis have settled so many people on territory conquered in 1967, in utter contempt for international law, was because the Arab population didn't lie down and play doggo 20 years before when the UN put out a resolution honouring the Balfour promise. Shame on both Balfour and the UN.
Not sure why you say nakba your arse. There was a catastrophe for the Arab population.
I’ve been following rugby since the mid seventies. This is the best Ireland side I’ve seen in that time.
"Israel Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant: “Today we saw the face of evil. The Hamas [terrorist organization] has launched a brutal attack against the citizens of the State of Israel - attacking men, women, children and the elderly, indiscriminately. Hamas will understand very quickly that it has made a mistake - a grave mistake, and will pay a [heavy] price.
Fifteen years ago, as Head of the Southern Command, I came close to 'breaking the neck' [destroying] of Hamas. I was stopped by the political echelon. This phenomenon will not continue. We will change reality on the ground in Gaza for the next 50 years. What was before, will be no more. We will operate at full force.
I ask Israel's citizens to remain determined and to support our security forces.”"
https://twitter.com/JoeTruzman/status/1710726426931175463
Prediction: Israel is going to occupy Gaza, slaughter thousands, and lay the groundwork for permanent ethnc cleansing: Nakba 2.0
You are, to use the vernacular, victim blaming.
The Nakba happened. Not sure what you gain from attempting to change the subject.
There is no way out of this that doesn't involve someone giving up on a perfectly justified claim. And who is in a position to do that?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/07/islamist-anti-semitism-israels-darkest-since-yom-kippur-war/
I also wonder what is happening at Scampton now it is being turned into a concentration centre for migrants, with all the contractors illegally* digging holes here and there and everywhere with no regard for heritage. Not seen a recent update, but it would be ironic if our UKG ends up resurrecting the pooch in question.
*As in: sans planning permission or permission to modify listed remains, the last I heard.
Time to switch off the news I think.
Joe Biden is considering a “one-and-done” spending bill to fund the war in Ukraine until the next presidential election in an attempt to overcome an impasse with Republicans, The Telegraph understands.
The White House is drawing up plans to ask Congress to release its largest funding package ever for weapons and humanitarian aid, amid concern continued rows over spending could damage the president in next year’s election.
Telegraph
Perhaps start issuing Collateralised Elderly Relative Obligations as OTCs to fund this?
Also this:
"Noa was partying in the south of Israel in a peace music festival when Hams terrorists kidnapped her and dragged her from Israel into Gaza.
Noa is held hostage by Hamas.
She could be your daughter, sister, friend.
#BringBackOurFamily"
https://x.com/Israel/status/1710727073252163925?s=20
Judging by what we have seen so far, she will certainly be gangraped and then likely killed
The Siege Of Chiswick Business Park continues.
Spent a good minute trying to work out the politics of all of it.
(I assume some of the commenters here didn't realize they were making that argument, but the facts support it.)
Just sickening
ורמי הביטחון יזהירו בעוד כמה דקות את שרי הקבינט: מזהים ניסיון של חמאס לרתום את ערביי ישראל למלחמה ולאחד את הזירות כמו בשומר החומות
Translated from Hebrew
The security officials will warn the cabinet ministers in a few minutes: they recognize an attempt by Hamas to harness the Israeli Arabs to war and unite the arenas as in the Guardian of the Walls
https://x.com/yaronavraham/status/1710730854639538595?s=20
I recall the moment after the Arafat peace accord, that we were the first coach of international travellers to enter Jericho and as our Jewish guide embraced the Palestinian soldier on the walls a spontaneous round of applause broke out as it was a very special moment as peace seemed possible
I have a very heavy heart tonight
It's perfectly reasonable to oppose both Hamas's murderous rampage and the Israeli Government policies which give Hamas a larger following. We don't have to pick a side and cheer them on as if they were football teams.
(Admittedly resized into obscurity by PB/Vanilla)
New Thread
That certainly is extreme and I would not agree with that.
You seem to ignore this and keep going “you’re wrong professional also means something else”.
Yes, it does have an alternative meaning. And no, it is not a relevant point that you are repeatedly making.
If a state called Palestine can live side-by-side with Israel, then great, but that's not in Israel's hands alone its Hamas etc who are insisting on genocide, not Israel.
But if they can't, but Jordan and Egypt can, then those can be the states. As they were from 1948 onwards anyway.
Rather than be so defensive, maybe do some actual research.