Well, I'm off travelling soon, and will be gone for some months.
But I won't be coming back. The fact that this is now a place for people to openly call for ethnic cleansing means it's not a place for me.
I say this not in anger, or in an accusatory tone. This is just an explanation in case there's one of you who ever wonders where that wanker Farooq went. No need to reply or to celebrate too loudly for my benefit, I won't be reading any of the replies.
Well, I'm off travelling soon, and will be gone for some months.
But I won't be coming back. The fact that this is now a place for people to openly call for ethnic cleansing means it's not a place for me.
I say this not in anger, or in an accusatory tone. This is just an explanation in case there's one of you who ever wonders where that wanker Farooq went. No need to reply or to celebrate too loudly for my benefit, I won't be reading any of the replies.
That's me. Bye.
Too right. Those people supporting Hamas in its attempts to wipe Israelis off the map, it is just terrible.
Well, I'm off travelling soon, and will be gone for some months.
But I won't be coming back. The fact that this is now a place for people to openly call for ethnic cleansing means it's not a place for me.
I say this not in anger, or in an accusatory tone. This is just an explanation in case there's one of you who ever wonders where that wanker Farooq went. No need to reply or to celebrate too loudly for my benefit, I won't be reading any of the replies.
That's me. Bye.
See you when you return, have fun, will miss our discussions they're always good natured and intelligent even if we don't often see eye to eye.
Well, I'm off travelling soon, and will be gone for some months.
But I won't be coming back. The fact that this is now a place for people to openly call for ethnic cleansing means it's not a place for me.
I say this not in anger, or in an accusatory tone. This is just an explanation in case there's one of you who ever wonders where that wanker Farooq went. No need to reply or to celebrate too loudly for my benefit, I won't be reading any of the replies.
That's me. Bye.
I disagree with almost all your posts, but you make me think. Please make it a temporary flounce.
Well, I'm off travelling soon, and will be gone for some months.
But I won't be coming back. The fact that this is now a place for people to openly call for ethnic cleansing means it's not a place for me.
I say this not in anger, or in an accusatory tone. This is just an explanation in case there's one of you who ever wonders where that wanker Farooq went. No need to reply or to celebrate too loudly for my benefit, I won't be reading any of the replies.
That's me. Bye.
bye we wont miss you
Some of us will.
well you are free to ask him to come back
If you find pb is no longer your thing fair enough...just go quietly into the night....announcing your flounce sorry dont believe a word of it he will be back
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
So a smaller percentage believe in a 2 state solution than support Hamas?
Seems like my three state solution (Israel, Egypt and Jordan being the three states) is increasingly the only option.
The viability of a 2-state solution has been reduced by Israel persisting with illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems suboptimal to encourage countries to illegally settle territory occupied by their military. If it’s OK for Israel to do it, is it OK for Russia to move people into eastern Ukraine or Abkhazia? But equally we have to deal with the facts on the ground.
There's the slight difference that Israel got this land from a defensive war that was launched by its neighbours trying once again to wipe out Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Russia got occupied land in a war of aggression.
Poland and France both allow construction in ex-German lands. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually if you want to be historically accurate then Israel got this land as the result of a pre-emptive strike when they thought the Arabs were going to attack them.
Well, I'm off travelling soon, and will be gone for some months.
But I won't be coming back. The fact that this is now a place for people to openly call for ethnic cleansing means it's not a place for me.
I say this not in anger, or in an accusatory tone. This is just an explanation in case there's one of you who ever wonders where that wanker Farooq went. No need to reply or to celebrate too loudly for my benefit, I won't be reading any of the replies.
Hmmm...with all the strong views about Israel and Palestine on here tonight I realise I don't know nearly enough about the history and origins of the conflict.
Can anyone point me to a balanced history of it? A book preferably, but podcasts and/or films too.
Thanks.
I have not reviewed the following video and I have no idea whether it's right or wrong. But I like the guy's other videos.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
You are right that Hamas remains opposed.
Israel has begun negotiations in the past. However, recent Israeli governments have effectively dropped the idea. There are more in the current government who favour a 1 state (Israel) and no Palestine solution.
Hardliners on one side encourage hardliners on the other side in a vicious circle.
Yep. Netanyahu is on record as saying that Israel should crush any attemt at Palestinian Statehood. Even before he said that he had made it clear what he though by promoting the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The two state solution is dead and Netanyahu and the hardliners are just as responsible for that as Hamas.
There are no 'good' guys in this conflict. They are all, at the political level, scumbags
Yes, Hamas and Israel are just the same of course.
Are you sure you are not Jeremy Corbyn?
Hamas and the current hardline Israeli Government are very similar. They both seek a victory through conflict over a negotiated settlement Once again you try to make any legitimate attack on the current Israeli Government an attack on all Jews. It is the behaviour of a zealot and, in your case, a scumbag.
Well, I'm off travelling soon, and will be gone for some months.
But I won't be coming back. The fact that this is now a place for people to openly call for ethnic cleansing means it's not a place for me.
I say this not in anger, or in an accusatory tone. This is just an explanation in case there's one of you who ever wonders where that wanker Farooq went. No need to reply or to celebrate too loudly for my benefit, I won't be reading any of the replies.
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
So a smaller percentage believe in a 2 state solution than support Hamas?
Seems like my three state solution (Israel, Egypt and Jordan being the three states) is increasingly the only option.
The viability of a 2-state solution has been reduced by Israel persisting with illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems suboptimal to encourage countries to illegally settle territory occupied by their military. If it’s OK for Israel to do it, is it OK for Russia to move people into eastern Ukraine or Abkhazia? But equally we have to deal with the facts on the ground.
There's the slight difference that Israel got this land from a defensive war that was launched by its neighbours trying once again to wipe out Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Russia got occupied land in a war of aggression.
Poland and France both allow construction in ex-German lands. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually if you want to be historically accurate then Israel got this land as the result of a pre-emptive strike when they thought the Arabs were going to attack them.
Both of you have recently announced that you wish to depart due to a preponderance of views you find dispiriting. Whilst I sympathize, PB should not be an echo chamber where one side agrees with itself: it is at its best when informed argument takes place. I would be grateful therefore if you could both stay.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
You are right that Hamas remains opposed.
Israel has begun negotiations in the past. However, recent Israeli governments have effectively dropped the idea. There are more in the current government who favour a 1 state (Israel) and no Palestine solution.
Hardliners on one side encourage hardliners on the other side in a vicious circle.
Yep. Netanyahu is on record as saying that Israel should crush any attemt at Palestinian Statehood. Even before he said that he had made it clear what he though by promoting the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The two state solution is dead and Netanyahu and the hardliners are just as responsible for that as Hamas.
There are no 'good' guys in this conflict. They are all, at the political level, scumbags
Yes, Hamas and Israel are just the same of course.
Are you sure you are not Jeremy Corbyn?
Hamas and the current hardline Israeli Government are very similar. They both seek a victory through conflict over a negotiated settlement Once again you try to make any legitimate attack on the current Israeli Government an attack on all Jews. It is the behaviour of a zealot and, in your case, a scumbag.
The difference is that Israel is a democratic state seeking to defend itself, while there is no Hamas state.
Indeed Egypt and Jordan have both renounced their claims on the land Israel has so unless or until a final peace treaty is agreed, that land is reasonably Israel's to do with as it pleases. If Hamas lay down their arms, Israel has shown a willingness to give land for peace to the Palestinians, something the Arab states never did.
Both of you have recently announced that you wish to depart due to a preponderance of views you find dispiriting. Whilst I sympathize, PB should not be an echo chamber where one side agrees with itself: it is at its best when informed argument takes place. I would be grateful therefore if you could both stay.
Nah. They can't hack it. Wouldn't be the first won't be the last.
Both of you have recently announced that you wish to depart due to a preponderance of views you find dispiriting. Whilst I sympathize, PB should not be an echo chamber where one side agrees with itself: it is at its best when informed argument takes place. I would be grateful therefore if you could both stay.
Couldn't agree more. Echo chambers should be avoided.
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
So a smaller percentage believe in a 2 state solution than support Hamas?
Seems like my three state solution (Israel, Egypt and Jordan being the three states) is increasingly the only option.
The viability of a 2-state solution has been reduced by Israel persisting with illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems suboptimal to encourage countries to illegally settle territory occupied by their military. If it’s OK for Israel to do it, is it OK for Russia to move people into eastern Ukraine or Abkhazia? But equally we have to deal with the facts on the ground.
There's the slight difference that Israel got this land from a defensive war that was launched by its neighbours trying once again to wipe out Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Russia got occupied land in a war of aggression.
Poland and France both allow construction in ex-German lands. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually if you want to be historically accurate then Israel got this land as the result of a pre-emptive strike when they thought the Arabs were going to attack them.
UN Resolution 181 sunshine.
Edit: to be historically accurate.
Not sure the point you are making 'Sunshine'. Resolution 181 made the West Bank part of a separate Arab State. It was incorporated into Jordan in 1950 and remained an part of an Arab state until the pre-emptive Israeli attacks in 1967.
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
So a smaller percentage believe in a 2 state solution than support Hamas?
Seems like my three state solution (Israel, Egypt and Jordan being the three states) is increasingly the only option.
The viability of a 2-state solution has been reduced by Israel persisting with illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems suboptimal to encourage countries to illegally settle territory occupied by their military. If it’s OK for Israel to do it, is it OK for Russia to move people into eastern Ukraine or Abkhazia? But equally we have to deal with the facts on the ground.
There's the slight difference that Israel got this land from a defensive war that was launched by its neighbours trying once again to wipe out Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Russia got occupied land in a war of aggression.
Poland and France both allow construction in ex-German lands. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually if you want to be historically accurate then Israel got this land as the result of a pre-emptive strike when they thought the Arabs were going to attack them.
UN Resolution 181 sunshine.
Edit: to be historically accurate.
Not sure the point you are making 'Sunshine'. Resolution 181 made the West Bank part of a separate Arab State. It was incorporated into Jordan in 1950 and remained an part of an Arab state until the pre-emptive Israeli attacks in 1967.
"The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948."
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
That polling is not very encouraging for those trying to ell us the Gazans just want peace and don't really support Hamas. The Gazans want things which are fundamentally incompatible with Israel's view of its future and its national security
Support for a democratic Palestine is at 14% - you are right, not exactly encouraging...
You are misquoting the figures. 14% say that’s the most important issue. That doesn’t mean the other 86% oppose democracy, just that they don’t put it as the first priority.
1. What a lot of silly questions in that polling.
When the Israeli armed forces attack Gaza, only a deranged antisocial person would be opposed to armed resistance.
At such times, the questions "Do you support Hamas?" or "Which do you consider to be more important - piety or establishing a Facebooko-democratic political system based on pluralism and secret ballots?" are totally irrelevant to real people living in conditions of fear, urgency, community response, bravery, and death.
I doubt anyone who is resisting the Israeli assault gives the slightest damn who is in Hamas and who isn't, right now.
That's not how respect works. I would have thought most people are doing their bit. If someone does their bit, they get respect, whatever party they're in, or military force, or religion for that matter. If someone doesn't pull their weight, give them a very fast talking to or find a way they CAN help.
I'm sure there have been both arseholes and great guys, both in Hamas and in other political organisations and outside of all political organisations. What matters now is pulling together. If someone's with the programme, great. If they're trying to profit personally from the situation, well you know what to do.
2. As for the connection between the events and the possible scuppering of an Israeli-Saudi love-in, factors that should be borne in mind include the following:
* The Israeli authorities and parties do not want peace; they have never wanted peace;
- The whole history of Zionism has been one of settlement, more settlement, ever more settlement, and the writing of the native population out of the picture, as people perceived as being without a land, without any rights, who may get some scraps thrown to them if they're well-behaved (so long as a Filipino can't do their job), but who were BORN undeserving to be in the picture;
- Camp David was a stitch-up, Oslo was a stitch-up; those who said so at the respective times were proved right; any deal with the Saudis would also be a stitch-up;
* Abbas and the PA may have been talking with the Saudis quite a lot and also with the Israelis; certainly the Saudi government, headchopper despotic creeps that they are, and despised throughout most of the Arab world, do still have some understanding of PR and any agreement would have included a sop to Abbas, a "change" in the 1967 occupied territories, just as back at the time of the Oslo agreement there was a casino - a f***ing casino! - in Jericho;
* If an Abbas-Netanyahu handshake was on the cards, THAT has certainly been scuppered;
* A Saudi agreement, though? Well if they sit on their hands, that's their part in the agreement right there. They've always shat on the Palestinians.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
You are right that Hamas remains opposed.
Israel has begun negotiations in the past. However, recent Israeli governments have effectively dropped the idea. There are more in the current government who favour a 1 state (Israel) and no Palestine solution.
Hardliners on one side encourage hardliners on the other side in a vicious circle.
Yep. Netanyahu is on record as saying that Israel should crush any attemt at Palestinian Statehood. Even before he said that he had made it clear what he though by promoting the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The two state solution is dead and Netanyahu and the hardliners are just as responsible for that as Hamas.
There are no 'good' guys in this conflict. They are all, at the political level, scumbags
Yes, Hamas and Israel are just the same of course.
Are you sure you are not Jeremy Corbyn?
Hamas and the current hardline Israeli Government are very similar. They both seek a victory through conflict over a negotiated settlement Once again you try to make any legitimate attack on the current Israeli Government an attack on all Jews. It is the behaviour of a zealot and, in your case, a scumbag.
The difference is that Israel is a democratic state seeking to defend itself, while there is no Hamas state.
Indeed Egypt and Jordan have both renounced their claims on the land Israel has so unless or until a final peace treaty is agreed, that land is reasonably Israel's to do with as it pleases. If Hamas lay down their arms, Israel has shown a willingness to give land for peace to the Palestinians, something the Arab states never did.
No it hasn't. At least not under its current administration which has done its best to destroy any chance of a separate Palestinian state. Netenyahu has been explicit in his oposition to this.
Both of you have recently announced that you wish to depart due to a preponderance of views you find dispiriting. Whilst I sympathize, PB should not be an echo chamber where one side agrees with itself: it is at its best when informed argument takes place. I would be grateful therefore if you could both stay.
Couldn't agree more. Echo chambers should be avoided.
Of course. But people flouncing because they can't get anyone to agree with them is a huge dick move.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
You are right that Hamas remains opposed.
Israel has begun negotiations in the past. However, recent Israeli governments have effectively dropped the idea. There are more in the current government who favour a 1 state (Israel) and no Palestine solution.
Hardliners on one side encourage hardliners on the other side in a vicious circle.
Yep. Netanyahu is on record as saying that Israel should crush any attemt at Palestinian Statehood. Even before he said that he had made it clear what he though by promoting the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The two state solution is dead and Netanyahu and the hardliners are just as responsible for that as Hamas.
There are no 'good' guys in this conflict. They are all, at the political level, scumbags
Yes, Hamas and Israel are just the same of course.
Are you sure you are not Jeremy Corbyn?
Hamas and the current hardline Israeli Government are very similar. They both seek a victory through conflict over a negotiated settlement Once again you try to make any legitimate attack on the current Israeli Government an attack on all Jews. It is the behaviour of a zealot and, in your case, a scumbag.
I don't know what the attitudes of the current Israeli government are. I do know that if the IDF had done some of the things we've seen today there would be outrage.
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
So a smaller percentage believe in a 2 state solution than support Hamas?
Seems like my three state solution (Israel, Egypt and Jordan being the three states) is increasingly the only option.
The viability of a 2-state solution has been reduced by Israel persisting with illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems suboptimal to encourage countries to illegally settle territory occupied by their military. If it’s OK for Israel to do it, is it OK for Russia to move people into eastern Ukraine or Abkhazia? But equally we have to deal with the facts on the ground.
There's the slight difference that Israel got this land from a defensive war that was launched by its neighbours trying once again to wipe out Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Russia got occupied land in a war of aggression.
Poland and France both allow construction in ex-German lands. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually if you want to be historically accurate then Israel got this land as the result of a pre-emptive strike when they thought the Arabs were going to attack them.
UN Resolution 181 sunshine.
Edit: to be historically accurate.
Not sure the point you are making 'Sunshine'. Resolution 181 made the West Bank part of a separate Arab State. It was incorporated into Jordan in 1950 and remained an part of an Arab state until the pre-emptive Israeli attacks in 1967.
"The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948."
Ah I see. Another case where you haven't actually bothered to read the thread and so jump in with both feet and make a fool of yourself.
We were talking about the West Bank and Gaza, not about the land of Israel in 1948. The West Bank and Gaza were part of the Arab state, both as planned under the foundation of Israel and as part of the 1949 peace agreement. They were then seized by Israel in 1967.
Try actually reading the thread before you spout off and it would save everyone a lot of trouble.
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
That polling is not very encouraging for those trying to ell us the Gazans just want peace and don't really support Hamas. The Gazans want things which are fundamentally incompatible with Israel's view of its future and its national security
Support for a democratic Palestine is at 14% - you are right, not exactly encouraging...
You are misquoting the figures. 14% say that’s the most important issue. That doesn’t mean the other 86% oppose democracy, just that they don’t put it as the first priority.
1. What a lot of silly questions in that polling.
When the Israeli armed forces attack Gaza, only a deranged antisocial person would be opposed to armed resistance.
At such times, the questions "Do you support Hamas?" or "Which do you consider to be more important - piety or establishing a Facebooko-democratic political system based on pluralism and secret ballots?" are totally irrelevant to real people living in conditions of fear, urgency, community response, bravery, and death.
I doubt anyone who is resisting the Israeli assault gives the slightest damn who is in Hamas and who isn't, right now.
That's not how respect works. I would have thought most people are doing their bit. If someone does their bit, they get respect, whatever party they're in, or military force, or religion for that matter. If someone doesn't pull their weight, give them a very fast talking to or find a way they CAN help.
I'm sure there have been both arseholes and great guys, both in Hamas and in other political organisations and outside of all political organisations. What matters now is pulling together. If someone's with the programme, great. If they're trying to profit personally from the situation, well you know what to do.
2. As for the connection between the events and the possible scuppering of an Israeli-Saudi love-in, factors that should be borne in mind include the following:
* The Israeli authorities and parties do not want peace; they have never wanted peace;
- The whole history of Zionism has been one of settlement, more settlement, ever more settlement, and the writing of the native population out of the picture, as people perceived as being without a land, without any rights, who may get some scraps thrown to them if they're well-behaved (so long as a Filipino can't do their job), but who were BORN undeserving to be in the picture;
- Camp David was a stitch-up, Oslo was a stitch-up; those who said so at the respective times were proved right; any deal with the Saudis would also be a stitch-up;
* Abbas and the PA may have been talking with the Saudis quite a lot and also with the Israelis; certainly the Saudi government, headchopper despotic creeps that they are, and despised throughout most of the Arab world, do still have some understanding of PR and any agreement would have included a sop to Abbas, a "change" in the 1967 occupied territories, just as back at the time of the Oslo agreement there was a casino - a f***ing casino! - in Jericho;
* If an Abbas-Netanyahu handshake was on the cards, THAT has certainly been scuppered;
* A Saudi agreement, though? Well if they sit on their hands, that's their part in the agreement right there. They've always shat on the Palestinians.
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
So a smaller percentage believe in a 2 state solution than support Hamas?
Seems like my three state solution (Israel, Egypt and Jordan being the three states) is increasingly the only option.
The viability of a 2-state solution has been reduced by Israel persisting with illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems suboptimal to encourage countries to illegally settle territory occupied by their military. If it’s OK for Israel to do it, is it OK for Russia to move people into eastern Ukraine or Abkhazia? But equally we have to deal with the facts on the ground.
There's the slight difference that Israel got this land from a defensive war that was launched by its neighbours trying once again to wipe out Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Russia got occupied land in a war of aggression.
Poland and France both allow construction in ex-German lands. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually if you want to be historically accurate then Israel got this land as the result of a pre-emptive strike when they thought the Arabs were going to attack them.
Pre-emptive in as much as it happened after Nasser had massed his forces and closed the Straits of Tiran, which was an act of war.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
You are right that Hamas remains opposed.
Israel has begun negotiations in the past. However, recent Israeli governments have effectively dropped the idea. There are more in the current government who favour a 1 state (Israel) and no Palestine solution.
Hardliners on one side encourage hardliners on the other side in a vicious circle.
Yep. Netanyahu is on record as saying that Israel should crush any attemt at Palestinian Statehood. Even before he said that he had made it clear what he though by promoting the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The two state solution is dead and Netanyahu and the hardliners are just as responsible for that as Hamas.
There are no 'good' guys in this conflict. They are all, at the political level, scumbags
Yes, Hamas and Israel are just the same of course.
Are you sure you are not Jeremy Corbyn?
Hamas and the current hardline Israeli Government are very similar. They both seek a victory through conflict over a negotiated settlement Once again you try to make any legitimate attack on the current Israeli Government an attack on all Jews. It is the behaviour of a zealot and, in your case, a scumbag.
I don't know what the attitudes of the current Israeli government are. I do know that if the IDF had done some of the things we've seen today there would be outrage.
Yep. Note I said both sides were scumbags. There is no defence of Hamas from me at all. Indeed as I said earlier in the day I think they have gone in to be as outrageous and murderous as possible just to make sure the Israelis respond by killing a lot of Palestinians.
The trouble is the Israelis under Netenyahu are quite happy to respond in kind. He doesn't want peace. Never has. He wants victory.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
You are right that Hamas remains opposed.
Israel has begun negotiations in the past. However, recent Israeli governments have effectively dropped the idea. There are more in the current government who favour a 1 state (Israel) and no Palestine solution.
Hardliners on one side encourage hardliners on the other side in a vicious circle.
Yep. Netanyahu is on record as saying that Israel should crush any attemt at Palestinian Statehood. Even before he said that he had made it clear what he though by promoting the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The two state solution is dead and Netanyahu and the hardliners are just as responsible for that as Hamas.
There are no 'good' guys in this conflict. They are all, at the political level, scumbags
Yes, Hamas and Israel are just the same of course.
Are you sure you are not Jeremy Corbyn?
Hamas and the current hardline Israeli Government are very similar. They both seek a victory through conflict over a negotiated settlement Once again you try to make any legitimate attack on the current Israeli Government an attack on all Jews. It is the behaviour of a zealot and, in your case, a scumbag.
The difference is that Israel is a democratic state seeking to defend itself, while there is no Hamas state.
Indeed Egypt and Jordan have both renounced their claims on the land Israel has so unless or until a final peace treaty is agreed, that land is reasonably Israel's to do with as it pleases. If Hamas lay down their arms, Israel has shown a willingness to give land for peace to the Palestinians, something the Arab states never did.
No it hasn't. At least not under its current administration which has done its best to destroy any chance of a separate Palestinian state. Netenyahu has been explicit in his oposition to this.
Entirely reasonably too considering that Hamas are explicit in wanting to commit genocide against the Jews and wipe Israel off the map.
Arafat had a chance for peace, that was rejected. Hamas and Fatah both continue to reject peace, actions have consequences.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
You are right that Hamas remains opposed.
Israel has begun negotiations in the past. However, recent Israeli governments have effectively dropped the idea. There are more in the current government who favour a 1 state (Israel) and no Palestine solution.
Hardliners on one side encourage hardliners on the other side in a vicious circle.
Yep. Netanyahu is on record as saying that Israel should crush any attemt at Palestinian Statehood. Even before he said that he had made it clear what he though by promoting the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The two state solution is dead and Netanyahu and the hardliners are just as responsible for that as Hamas.
There are no 'good' guys in this conflict. They are all, at the political level, scumbags
Yes, Hamas and Israel are just the same of course.
Are you sure you are not Jeremy Corbyn?
Hamas and the current hardline Israeli Government are very similar. They both seek a victory through conflict over a negotiated settlement Once again you try to make any legitimate attack on the current Israeli Government an attack on all Jews. It is the behaviour of a zealot and, in your case, a scumbag.
I don't know what the attitudes of the current Israeli government are. I do know that if the IDF had done some of the things we've seen today there would be outrage.
Yep. Note I said both sides were scumbags. There is no defence of Hamas from me at all. Indeed as I said earlier in the day I think they have gone in to be as outrageous and murderous as possible just to make sure the Israelis respond by killing a lot of Palestinians.
The trouble is the Israelis under Netenyahu are quite happy to respond in kind. He doesn't want peace. Never has. He wants victory.
If another side is fighting you and won't stop fighting you, then seeking victory is better than seeking peace.
Zelensky quite rightly wants to defeat the Russians before having peace.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
You are right that Hamas remains opposed.
Israel has begun negotiations in the past. However, recent Israeli governments have effectively dropped the idea. There are more in the current government who favour a 1 state (Israel) and no Palestine solution.
Hardliners on one side encourage hardliners on the other side in a vicious circle.
Yep. Netanyahu is on record as saying that Israel should crush any attemt at Palestinian Statehood. Even before he said that he had made it clear what he though by promoting the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The two state solution is dead and Netanyahu and the hardliners are just as responsible for that as Hamas.
There are no 'good' guys in this conflict. They are all, at the political level, scumbags
Yes, Hamas and Israel are just the same of course.
Are you sure you are not Jeremy Corbyn?
Hamas and the current hardline Israeli Government are very similar. They both seek a victory through conflict over a negotiated settlement Once again you try to make any legitimate attack on the current Israeli Government an attack on all Jews. It is the behaviour of a zealot and, in your case, a scumbag.
The difference is that Israel is a democratic state seeking to defend itself, while there is no Hamas state.
Indeed Egypt and Jordan have both renounced their claims on the land Israel has so unless or until a final peace treaty is agreed, that land is reasonably Israel's to do with as it pleases. If Hamas lay down their arms, Israel has shown a willingness to give land for peace to the Palestinians, something the Arab states never did.
No it hasn't. At least not under its current administration which has done its best to destroy any chance of a separate Palestinian state. Netenyahu has been explicit in his oposition to this.
Israel agreed to UN 181 and was attacked that same day. The neighbouring Arab States have since that moment wanted to destroy Israel. Fair enough they disagreed with 181, the Balfour Declaration, and dislike the Jews as equal citizens.
Fast forward through 1967 and 1973 to Sharon. He gave back Gaza. Which interrupted the violence towards Israel not one iota. Just like in 1947-48 at some point the Jews thought fuck it. They are not going to negotiate so we'll give them a bit of tissue own medicine. Netanyahu is an example of that.
Not strictly the right thing to do but like the person who fights off a mugger and then gives them an extra slap wholly understandable.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
Israel once armed Hamas. Whatever was written or not written in the organisation's mission statement didn't seem to be much of a problem then.
What you're doing is looking at things from the Israeli point of view, asking whether the Palestinians are worth negotiating with, and unsurprisingly ending up with the answer "no". Which isn't surprising because from the Israeli point of view, which is to say the point of view of those who support the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, recognition of equal rights regardless of "ethnoreligious" background (whether individually, in terms of two states, or even in terms of "binationalism" or "power-sharing") is total anathema. Israel has only ever marched in one direction: divide its enemies, continue settlement, increase the humiliation of the Palestinians. The "We bend over backwards to help you" position is wearing a little thin after 75 years.
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
So a smaller percentage believe in a 2 state solution than support Hamas?
Seems like my three state solution (Israel, Egypt and Jordan being the three states) is increasingly the only option.
The viability of a 2-state solution has been reduced by Israel persisting with illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems suboptimal to encourage countries to illegally settle territory occupied by their military. If it’s OK for Israel to do it, is it OK for Russia to move people into eastern Ukraine or Abkhazia? But equally we have to deal with the facts on the ground.
There's the slight difference that Israel got this land from a defensive war that was launched by its neighbours trying once again to wipe out Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Russia got occupied land in a war of aggression.
Poland and France both allow construction in ex-German lands. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually if you want to be historically accurate then Israel got this land as the result of a pre-emptive strike when they thought the Arabs were going to attack them.
UN Resolution 181 sunshine.
Edit: to be historically accurate.
Not sure the point you are making 'Sunshine'. Resolution 181 made the West Bank part of a separate Arab State. It was incorporated into Jordan in 1950 and remained an part of an Arab state until the pre-emptive Israeli attacks in 1967.
"The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948."
Ah I see. Another case where you haven't actually bothered to read the thread and so jump in with both feet and make a fool of yourself.
We were talking about the West Bank and Gaza, not about the land of Israel in 1948. The West Bank and Gaza were part of the Arab state, both as planned under the foundation of Israel and as part of the 1949 peace agreement. They were then seized by Israel in 1967.
Try actually reading the thread before you spout off and it would save everyone a lot of trouble.
Sunshine.
Fine. Spoils of war which, under UN 242 and 338 they were never told to give back. Such is life and war.
Sunak received his loudest applause from the Tory crowd in Manchester when he lunged into the arguments about identity issues by baldly declaring: “A man is a man and a woman is a woman.” Does Starmer, whose own party has its divisions on the subject, agree? “Yes, of course,” he responds crisply and without qualification. “You know, a woman is a female adult.” That answer will delight some while dismaying those who regard the position as transphobic. He does not expand on the subject, claiming that the issue was “not raised with us” on doorsteps.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution, perhaps mistakenly after Hamas took control of Gaza.)
Israel once armed Hamas. Whatever was written or not written in the organisation's mission statement didn't seem to be much of a problem then.
What you're doing is looking at things from the Israeli point of view, asking whether the Palestinians are worth negotiating with, and unsurprisingly ending up with the answer "no". Which isn't surprising because from the Israeli point of view, which is to say the point of view of those who support the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, recognition of equal rights regardless of "ethnoreligious" background (whether individually, in terms of two states, or even in terms of "binationalism" or "power-sharing") is total anathema. Israel has only ever marched in one direction: divide its enemies, continue settlement, increase the humiliation of the Palestinians. The "We bend over backwards to help you" position is wearing a little thin after 75 years.
PS Could people please stop mentioning Hitler?
Apart of course from in 1947 when they agreed to the partition plan.
American diplomats have tried hard for such a solution.)
I think it was this thread or maybe the previous, but I already said my preferred solution would actually be a "One-State Solution", where members of both the communities could live, pray and work wherever they wanted. Something akin to Bosnia. I confess, it would be completely crazy.
And yet, Dayton 1995 ended the Bosnian conflict, and the Serbs and Bosniaks (and Croats) are no longer lobbing rockets and/or tank shells at one another, correct? Something akin to the Dayton settlement.
The thing that unsettles me about the two-state solution, is that any Israelis living in putative Palestinian land would be seen as "settlers", "Zionists", etc., whereas any Arabs living in Israel would be seen as "fifth columists", "terrorists", etc., correct? A recipe for Apartheid by both sides, I would think.
A single state wouldn't be called Israel, obv.
Be careful with the word "apartheid." Applied in South Africa it was a white supremacist spin word for white supremacy, dressed up in the "we're not saying we're better, we're only saying we don't want to live together" talk that many racists indulge in. Said in English it's "separation" or "separate development", terms which are euphemistic and mendacious when applied to South Africa.
White-supremacist South Africa didn't slaughter the sh*t out of the black population on anything like the same level that Israel has slaughtered the sh*t out of the Palestinians. It didn't do things like bulldoze the family homes of resisters down either. What Israel is doing is WORSE than the white supremacy in South Africa that was described by its imposers, its supporters, and unfortunately also by many of its opponents as "apartheid". This isn't changed by the fact that the minority of Palestinian Arabs who carry Israeli passports haven't been designated citizens of "foreign" bantustans. There is a similarity of course with South African white supremacy in the zoning and the pass laws and the Jewish-only towns where Arabs aren't allowed to stay overnight, but the level of supremacist violence (whether it's murder or "only" ankle-shooting) puts it in another category.
Binationalism (a term that was used for a while in a Palestinian context) would be a form of apartheid in the sense that it would have a theme of "separate development" even if it didn't feature bantustans or reservations. "Power-sharing" is another euphemism.
On the other hand, peace is of course better than war and power sharing has worked in many places including in Northern Ireland where there is still a wall in Belfast. So I'm not saying down with pragmatism. But there is no point in even discussing this kind of "solution" in Palestine because (well this is one of the reasons) THERE IS NOBODY TO IMPOSE IT. In that sense it is nothing like Bosnia. There won't be any guarantor powers. The idea is not exactly controversial in the region that the only language Israel understands is violence.
Many who would like that not to be so nonetheless recognise that it is so.
What form might the coordinated international support take? I'm guessing he's not talking merely about sonorous resolutions, and also that Hamas doesn't keep much money in London. Bank accounts that don't exist can't be blocked.
Perhaps he'll ban pro-Palestinian demonstrations. I can easily envisage him doing that.
He could even issue some proscription orders.
Students of propaganda should pay attention to how "Israel" is an English word (the Hebrew word in romanised spelling being "Yisra'el"), whereas "Hamas" is the romanised spelling of an Arabic acronym for what in English is the "Islamic Resistance Movement". "Israel" doesn't sound foreign in English; "Hamas" does. Crude is often effective where propaganda is concerned, as many of its aficionados have observed.
What form might the coordinated international support take? I'm guessing he's not talking merely about sonorous resolutions, and also that Hamas doesn't keep much money in London. Bank accounts that don't exist can't be blocked.
Perhaps he'll ban pro-Palestinian demonstrations. I can easily envisage him doing that.
He could even issue some proscription orders.
Students of propaganda should pay attention to how "Israel" is an English word (the Hebrew word in romanised spelling being "Yisra'el"), whereas "Hamas" is the romanised spelling of an Arabic acronym for what in English is the "Islamic Resistance Movement". "Israel" doesn't sound foreign in English; "Hamas" does. Crude is often effective where propaganda is concerned, as many of its aficionados have observed.
The words Israel and Hamas are western propaganda?
Visited a few places in Christchurch today with a phenomenal response from everyone. Heading up to Masterton for our public meeting tomorrow…join the surge and if you’re in the area see you there!
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
So a smaller percentage believe in a 2 state solution than support Hamas?
Seems like my three state solution (Israel, Egypt and Jordan being the three states) is increasingly the only option.
The viability of a 2-state solution has been reduced by Israel persisting with illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems suboptimal to encourage countries to illegally settle territory occupied by their military. If it’s OK for Israel to do it, is it OK for Russia to move people into eastern Ukraine or Abkhazia? But equally we have to deal with the facts on the ground.
There's the slight difference that Israel got this land from a defensive war that was launched by its neighbours trying once again to wipe out Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Russia got occupied land in a war of aggression.
Poland and France both allow construction in ex-German lands. Nothing wrong with that.
One needs to be clear about what ethnic cleansing entails. It’s not about putting people on air-conditioned coaches, and sending them somewhere better.
It usually involves mass killing and rape, as that’s the best way to persuade people to leave. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, tens of thousands of Palestinians would have to be killed and raped to induce the majority to flee.
We accepted that in Eastern Europe, because 20% of the Polish population, and a third of the Belarus population and millions of Russians, had been murdered by the Germans. It was seen as horribly rough justice. The Israelis have not had to face anything like that suffering.
Victory in war does not generally entitle the victor to expel the local population.
Israel really has only two long-term choices. A State with a big Jewish majority, excluding the West Bank, or a State with a small Jewish majority, including the West Bank. I would go for the former.
Both of you have recently announced that you wish to depart due to a preponderance of views you find dispiriting. Whilst I sympathize, PB should not be an echo chamber where one side agrees with itself: it is at its best when informed argument takes place. I would be grateful therefore if you could both stay.
People come and people go. Though it's very rarely the ones you want to fuck off that do.
I think that we should be given the opportunity to vote off one regular on the Feast of Saint Catherine every year. I reckon I know who would be the odds on fav to get the toe up the hoop.
That’s incredibly sad. Innocent people always pay the price .
Yes, and likely to do so again:
"A very long line of Israeli tanks is heading south. Local media say the start of a ground offensive into Gaza is imminent. Israeli PM earlier warned Palestinian to leave Gaza saying the country’s army will turn Gaza into 'ruined islands.'"
Gaza is one of the most crowded parts of the world. There is no place for the 2 million inhabitants to go to.
Their fault. They back Hamas and they provide the foot soldiers.
You reap what you sow.
You could say that regarding Israel's refusal to brook Palestinian independence.
Why grant independence to a people / nation whose whole intention is to destroy you?
After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was very happy backing Hitler in World War II because of Hitler's hatred towards the Jews.
Hey, but if you want to back the Grand Mufti's ideological successors, that is up to you....
You've just called a whole nation of people genocidalists, offering as your premise the fact that 80 years ago a British-appointed religious official who had the same nationality became pro-Nazi.
Like to take a view on the number of Palestinians who support Israel's right to exist?
Or indeed would have been opposed to Hitler's policies towards the Jews?
What do you reckon is that percentage?
Probably 50% plus for Israel existence, 90% opposed to Hitlers Holocaust.
Though quite a high percentage don't see why they should lose their land because European countires were anti-semetic and genocidal.
It wasn't the Palestinians that tried to exterminate the Jews, it was Europeans. Britain refused to allow Jewish refugees to go to Palestine, so it wasn’t just the continentals who share the blame.
Support for Hamas is around 1/3. About 50:50 for and against armed resistance (polling before the latest attacks). About 1/4 support a 2-state solution, about 1/4 support a 1-state solution (i.e. greater minority rights for Palestinians in a unified Israel/Palestine). 3/4 say a 2-state solution is no longer feasible because of Israeli settlement expansion.
“38% believe that the first most vital Palestinian goal should be to end Israeli occupation in the areas occupied in 1967 and build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. By contrast, 32% believe the first most vital goal should be to obtain the right of return of refugees to their 1948 towns and villages, 15% believe that the first and most vital goal should be to build a pious or moral individual and a religious society, one that applies all Islamic teachings and 14% believes it should be to establish a democratic political system that respects freedoms and rights of Palestinians.
“In a question about the main problem confronting Palestinian society today, the largest percentage, 25% (9% in the Gaz Strip and 35% in the West Bank), say it is corruption; 22% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 17% in the West Bank) say it is unemployment and poverty; 19% say it is the continuation of the occupation and settlement construction; 18% (30% in the Gaza Strip and 11% in the West Bank) say it is continued siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip; 10% say it is the split between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and 3% say it is the weakness of the judiciary and the absence of liberties, accountability and democracy.”
So a smaller percentage believe in a 2 state solution than support Hamas?
Seems like my three state solution (Israel, Egypt and Jordan being the three states) is increasingly the only option.
The viability of a 2-state solution has been reduced by Israel persisting with illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems suboptimal to encourage countries to illegally settle territory occupied by their military. If it’s OK for Israel to do it, is it OK for Russia to move people into eastern Ukraine or Abkhazia? But equally we have to deal with the facts on the ground.
There's the slight difference that Israel got this land from a defensive war that was launched by its neighbours trying once again to wipe out Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Russia got occupied land in a war of aggression.
Poland and France both allow construction in ex-German lands. Nothing wrong with that.
One needs to be clear about what ethnic cleansing entails. It’s not about putting people on air-conditioned coaches, and sending them somewhere better.
It usually involves mass killing and rape, as that’s the best way to persuade people to leave. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, tens of thousands of Palestinians would have to be killed and raped to induce the majority to flee.
We accepted that in Eastern Europe, because 20% of the Polish population, and a third of the Belarus population and millions of Russians, had been murdered by the Germans. It was seen as horribly rough justice. The Israelis have not had to face anything like that suffering.
Victory in war does not generally entitle the victor to expel the local population.
Israel really has only two long-term choices. A State with a big Jewish majority, excluding the West Bank, or a State with a small Jewish majority, including the West Bank. I would go for the former.
When I was last in Israel, I went to a lecture at the Hebrew University who said, among other things, that Jewish Israelis wanted a state that was three things - Jewish, democratic and from the river to the sea. But, as he pointed out, you could only have any two of those things.
Rather looks as though Netanyahu is about to entirely abandon the ‘democratic’ part using this as a pretext to put Yigal Allon’s ideas into action.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Azs7As3MYFU
If it contains any mistakes/bias no doubt other people will point it out. Let me know what you think.
Edit: to be historically accurate.
Both of you have recently announced that you wish to depart due to a preponderance of views you find dispiriting. Whilst I sympathize, PB should not be an echo chamber where one side agrees with itself: it is at its best when informed argument takes place. I would be grateful therefore if you could both stay.
Indeed Egypt and Jordan have both renounced their claims on the land Israel has so unless or until a final peace treaty is agreed, that land is reasonably Israel's to do with as it pleases. If Hamas lay down their arms, Israel has shown a willingness to give land for peace to the Palestinians, something the Arab states never did.
"The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948."
When the Israeli armed forces attack Gaza, only a deranged antisocial person would be opposed to armed resistance.
At such times, the questions "Do you support Hamas?" or "Which do you consider to be more important - piety or establishing a Facebooko-democratic political system based on pluralism and secret ballots?" are totally irrelevant to real people living in conditions of fear, urgency, community response, bravery, and death.
I doubt anyone who is resisting the Israeli assault gives the slightest damn who is in Hamas and who isn't, right now.
That's not how respect works. I would have thought most people are doing their bit. If someone does their bit, they get respect, whatever party they're in, or military force, or religion for that matter. If someone doesn't pull their weight, give them a very fast talking to or find a way they CAN help.
I'm sure there have been both arseholes and great guys, both in Hamas and in other political organisations and outside of all political organisations. What matters now is pulling together. If someone's with the programme, great. If they're trying to profit personally from the situation, well you know what to do.
2. As for the connection between the events and the possible scuppering of an Israeli-Saudi love-in, factors that should be borne in mind include the following:
* The Israeli authorities and parties do not want peace; they have never wanted peace;
- The whole history of Zionism has been one of settlement, more settlement, ever more settlement, and the writing of the native population out of the picture, as people perceived as being without a land, without any rights, who may get some scraps thrown to them if they're well-behaved (so long as a Filipino can't do their job), but who were BORN undeserving to be in the picture;
- Camp David was a stitch-up, Oslo was a stitch-up; those who said so at the respective times were proved right; any deal with the Saudis would also be a stitch-up;
* Abbas and the PA may have been talking with the Saudis quite a lot and also with the Israelis; certainly the Saudi government, headchopper despotic creeps that they are, and despised throughout most of the Arab world, do still have some understanding of PR and any agreement would have included a sop to Abbas, a "change" in the 1967 occupied territories, just as back at the time of the Oslo agreement there was a casino - a f***ing casino! - in Jericho;
* If an Abbas-Netanyahu handshake was on the cards, THAT has certainly been scuppered;
* A Saudi agreement, though? Well if they sit on their hands, that's their part in the agreement right there. They've always shat on the Palestinians.
We were talking about the West Bank and Gaza, not about the land of Israel in 1948. The West Bank and Gaza were part of the Arab state, both as planned under the foundation of Israel and as part of the 1949 peace agreement. They were then seized by Israel in 1967.
Try actually reading the thread before you spout off and it would save everyone a lot of trouble.
Sunshine.
The trouble is the Israelis under Netenyahu are quite happy to respond in kind. He doesn't want peace. Never has. He wants victory.
Arafat had a chance for peace, that was rejected. Hamas and Fatah both continue to reject peace, actions have consequences.
Zelensky quite rightly wants to defeat the Russians before having peace.
Victory is what leads to a lasting peace.
Fast forward through 1967 and 1973 to Sharon. He gave back Gaza. Which interrupted the violence towards Israel not one iota. Just like in 1947-48 at some point the Jews thought fuck it. They are not going to negotiate so we'll give them a bit of tissue own medicine. Netanyahu is an example of that.
Not strictly the right thing to do but like the person who fights off a mugger and then gives them an extra slap wholly understandable.
What you're doing is looking at things from the Israeli point of view, asking whether the Palestinians are worth negotiating with, and unsurprisingly ending up with the answer "no". Which isn't surprising because from the Israeli point of view, which is to say the point of view of those who support the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, recognition of equal rights regardless of "ethnoreligious" background (whether individually, in terms of two states, or even in terms of "binationalism" or "power-sharing") is total anathema. Israel has only ever marched in one direction: divide its enemies, continue settlement, increase the humiliation of the Palestinians. The "We bend over backwards to help you" position is wearing a little thin after 75 years.
PS Could people please stop mentioning Hitler?
Sugar tits.
Sunak received his loudest applause from the Tory crowd in Manchester when he lunged into the arguments about identity issues by baldly declaring: “A man is a man and a woman is a woman.” Does Starmer, whose own party has its divisions on the subject, agree? “Yes, of course,” he responds crisply and without qualification. “You know, a woman is a female adult.” That answer will delight some while dismaying those who regard the position as transphobic. He does not expand on the subject, claiming that the issue was “not raised with us” on doorsteps.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/07/keir-starmer-we-need-to-show-the-country-that-we-are-the-change?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
This attack by Hamas is cowardly and depraved.
We have expressed our full solidarity to @netanyahu and will work with international partners in the next 24 hours to co-ordinate support.
https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1710772839983300858?s=20
Be careful with the word "apartheid." Applied in South Africa it was a white supremacist spin word for white supremacy, dressed up in the "we're not saying we're better, we're only saying we don't want to live together" talk that many racists indulge in. Said in English it's "separation" or "separate development", terms which are euphemistic and mendacious when applied to South Africa.
White-supremacist South Africa didn't slaughter the sh*t out of the black population on anything like the same level that Israel has slaughtered the sh*t out of the Palestinians. It didn't do things like bulldoze the family homes of resisters down either. What Israel is doing is WORSE than the white supremacy in South Africa that was described by its imposers, its supporters, and unfortunately also by many of its opponents as "apartheid". This isn't changed by the fact that the minority of Palestinian Arabs who carry Israeli passports haven't been designated citizens of "foreign" bantustans. There is a similarity of course with South African white supremacy in the zoning and the pass laws and the Jewish-only towns where Arabs aren't allowed to stay overnight, but the level of supremacist violence (whether it's murder or "only" ankle-shooting) puts it in another category.
Binationalism (a term that was used for a while in a Palestinian context) would be a form of apartheid in the sense that it would have a theme of "separate development" even if it didn't feature bantustans or reservations. "Power-sharing" is another euphemism.
On the other hand, peace is of course better than war and power sharing has worked in many places including in Northern Ireland where there is still a wall in Belfast. So I'm not saying down with pragmatism. But there is no point in even discussing this kind of "solution" in Palestine because (well this is one of the reasons) THERE IS NOBODY TO IMPOSE IT. In that sense it is nothing like Bosnia. There won't be any guarantor powers. The idea is not exactly controversial in the region that the only language Israel understands is violence.
Many who would like that not to be so nonetheless recognise that it is so.
A ground invasion of Gaza is coming
Perhaps he'll ban pro-Palestinian demonstrations. I can easily envisage him doing that.
He could even issue some proscription orders.
Students of propaganda should pay attention to how "Israel" is an English word (the Hebrew word in romanised spelling being "Yisra'el"), whereas "Hamas" is the romanised spelling of an Arabic acronym for what in English is the "Islamic Resistance Movement". "Israel" doesn't sound foreign in English; "Hamas" does. Crude is often effective where propaganda is concerned, as many of its aficionados have observed.
"Winston Peters
@winstonpeters
Visited a few places in Christchurch today with a phenomenal response from everyone. Heading up to Masterton for our public meeting tomorrow…join the surge and if you’re in the area see you there!
Let’s Take back Our Country!"
https://twitter.com/winstonpeters/status/1710521227360784690
It usually involves mass killing and rape, as that’s the best way to persuade people to leave. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, tens of thousands of Palestinians would have to be killed and raped to induce the majority to flee.
We accepted that in Eastern Europe, because 20% of the Polish population, and a third of the Belarus population and millions of Russians, had been murdered by the Germans. It was seen as horribly rough justice. The Israelis have not had to face anything like that suffering.
Victory in war does not generally entitle the
victor to expel the local population.
Israel really has only two long-term choices. A State with a big Jewish majority, excluding the West Bank, or a State with a small Jewish majority, including the West Bank. I would go for the former.
Lab 43 (-1)
Con 28 (+2)
LD 12 (=)
Numerous other Qs but this one is a bit different and interesting:
Q: Over the last 30 years we have had 8 PMs. Who is most to blame for the UK's current economic situation?
Johnson 20
Blair 16
Cameron 15
Truss 13
May 6
Brown 5
Sunak 4
Major 1
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12606369/Rishi-Sunak-rights-women-Sir-Keir-Starmer-flip-flopper-policy.html
I think that we should be given the opportunity to vote off one regular on the Feast of Saint Catherine every year. I reckon I know who would be the odds on fav to get the toe up the hoop.
Rather looks as though Netanyahu is about to entirely abandon the ‘democratic’ part using this as a pretext to put Yigal Allon’s ideas into action.