By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
It would be good to hear criticism from all those Israel-supporting groups like the Tory leadership, the CFI and LFI who say they are actually working for a two-state solution ... oh I forgot. That's just lip service as they again stand idly by and do nothing about the latest in the long line of annexations that is destroying the viability of any future Palestinian state.
Whether it's arming and training the Saudis to kill Yemenis, trying to manipulate factional power for commercial gain or providing a shelter for the religious and nationalist right in Israel to operate with impunity, the UK establishment is a shameful enemy of the people of the Middle East.
Do we really want our country to be seen like this?
9
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 09:53 - Sep 11 with 896 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 08:37 - Sep 11 by Kropotkin123
For those that are interested
Very good. And insane that we've effectively chosen Saudi Arabia as an ally and Iran as an enemy based on what we know about how that approach enables one and threatens the other to keep tensions high.
It also says we'll put our morals to the side to insert ourselves into the region and get the financial benefits (of course, we chose Saudi Arabia because they have the biggest wallets). After all, there's not much money in peacekeeping.
0
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:06 - Sep 11 with 874 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 09:50 - Sep 11 by brazil1982
JC had nothing to do with peace talks in NI. He achieved nothing. Only ever supported the Republican movement both politically and militarily.
We were talking about the legitimacy of his approach. Your implication that this approach is working against peace and supporting them "militarily" is nonsense.
0
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:09 - Sep 11 with 857 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 09:53 - Sep 11 by BanksterDebtSlave
.....maybe you should check with the people that make up the definitions.....
Edit....Will they mind if I march around shouting...."the Israeli state is a racist state".....and what happens if my tw@tter followers 'like it.....?
[Post edited 11 Sep 2019 9:55]
Saying that the current Israeli government is racist isn’t antisemitic. Netanyahu Is a racist who enacts racist policies and leads a racist government.
Nothing antisemitic in that.
Saying that the state of Israel is a racist endeavour is. Now come back to me when you understand what Israel is a racist endeavour means in the context of the IHRA definition actually means.
"History is made, sadly, by people who are bystanders and do nothing. Their inaction is an excuse and a cover for intolerance".
You're right to highlight the position that Netanyahu is taking as completely wrong and incompatible with regards to the implementation two state solution.
This seems like a good place to also highlight the seizure of Rohingya land and the replacement of their villages with new settlements or government facilities in Myanmar:
"That's just lip service as they again stand idly by and do nothing"
What actions would you like to see the UK take in regards to these events?
SB
“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."
0
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:17 - Sep 11 with 832 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:09 - Sep 11 by GlasgowBlue
Saying that the current Israeli government is racist isn’t antisemitic. Netanyahu Is a racist who enacts racist policies and leads a racist government.
Nothing antisemitic in that.
Saying that the state of Israel is a racist endeavour is. Now come back to me when you understand what Israel is a racist endeavour means in the context of the IHRA definition actually means.
So why is there no condemnation from our government and most of our politicians?
I'd be interested in your theory for that.
0
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:23 - Sep 11 with 815 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:14 - Sep 11 by StokieBlue
You're right to highlight the position that Netanyahu is taking as completely wrong and incompatible with regards to the implementation two state solution.
This seems like a good place to also highlight the seizure of Rohingya land and the replacement of their villages with new settlements or government facilities in Myanmar:
"That's just lip service as they again stand idly by and do nothing"
What actions would you like to see the UK take in regards to these events?
SB
A) We should condemn aggression and not explain it away as the right to defend yourself. B) We should refrain from taking sides. Especially for our own financial or geo-political benefit C) If one country is more the aggressor and has more in its own power to end the conflict then we should take sides D) We should never back this "winning team"
It's 2019. And this idea of empire, the out if sight out of mind perspective, dehumanising the populations or whatever it is just needs to stop.
0
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:27 - Sep 11 with 801 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:23 - Sep 11 by Darth_Koont
A) We should condemn aggression and not explain it away as the right to defend yourself. B) We should refrain from taking sides. Especially for our own financial or geo-political benefit C) If one country is more the aggressor and has more in its own power to end the conflict then we should take sides D) We should never back this "winning team"
It's 2019. And this idea of empire, the out if sight out of mind perspective, dehumanising the populations or whatever it is just needs to stop.
You've not implemented any of those in regards to Myanmar though - you've not mentioned it at all in your reply and it's essentially exactly the same thing except they are actually removing existing settlements.
I don't disagree with any of those points, I'd be interested to hear an expanded version of (C) though. How far does taking sides go? What would be taking sides in this case? I'm interested to know how you think it should play out from the UK perspective.
SB
“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."
1) The international community should follow the example of countries like Sweden in recognising Palestine; if countries don't then they are simply paying lip-service to any 'two-state solution'. What is stopping the UK from doing this?
2) Even more radical than that, and something that may convince you even further that I have some sort of brain problem: push for a one-state solution. I've seen this idea kicked about before on both sides. Instead of further entrenching difference through the creation of ethno-nationalist states, the two peoples should create one state which they both recognise as historically, culturally and religiously important to both.
It's an aim, at least.
"We need a man in charge of boys, they wont like it up em, but they'd rather it be coming from their gaffer than those broom wrangling wannabes in league 1."
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:37 - Sep 11 by footers
My two penneth:
1) The international community should follow the example of countries like Sweden in recognising Palestine; if countries don't then they are simply paying lip-service to any 'two-state solution'. What is stopping the UK from doing this?
2) Even more radical than that, and something that may convince you even further that I have some sort of brain problem: push for a one-state solution. I've seen this idea kicked about before on both sides. Instead of further entrenching difference through the creation of ethno-nationalist states, the two peoples should create one state which they both recognise as historically, culturally and religiously important to both.
It's an aim, at least.
A one state solution isn’t viable. Israel is the only Jewish state in the whole of the world. There are over 50 Islamic states and even more Christian.
Israel was created as a safe haven for Jews in their historic homeland after six million were exterminated in the Holocaust. This followed two millennia of persecution across the world.
With antisemitism on the rise across the world, the need for a Jewish homeland is even more necessary. With hostile Arab neighbours surrounding it, how long to you think the Jewish people would last in a one nation state?
Nine if the above excuses the actions of the current Israeli government which is reprehensible.
"History is made, sadly, by people who are bystanders and do nothing. Their inaction is an excuse and a cover for intolerance".
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:46 - Sep 11 by GlasgowBlue
A one state solution isn’t viable. Israel is the only Jewish state in the whole of the world. There are over 50 Islamic states and even more Christian.
Israel was created as a safe haven for Jews in their historic homeland after six million were exterminated in the Holocaust. This followed two millennia of persecution across the world.
With antisemitism on the rise across the world, the need for a Jewish homeland is even more necessary. With hostile Arab neighbours surrounding it, how long to you think the Jewish people would last in a one nation state?
Nine if the above excuses the actions of the current Israeli government which is reprehensible.
Eh?
0
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:51 - Sep 11 with 751 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:46 - Sep 11 by GlasgowBlue
A one state solution isn’t viable. Israel is the only Jewish state in the whole of the world. There are over 50 Islamic states and even more Christian.
Israel was created as a safe haven for Jews in their historic homeland after six million were exterminated in the Holocaust. This followed two millennia of persecution across the world.
With antisemitism on the rise across the world, the need for a Jewish homeland is even more necessary. With hostile Arab neighbours surrounding it, how long to you think the Jewish people would last in a one nation state?
Nine if the above excuses the actions of the current Israeli government which is reprehensible.
It's a nice aim though. If a viable single state solution was found it's surely better as it's less division in the area.
There are obviously huge hurdles to overcome before it would be possible but if both parties were truly committed to the solution then why would the Jewish people in Israel be under more threat than they are now?
Your scenario is one when the parties aren't totally committed to the solution and see it as a means to a different end. I agree that is the realistic scenario at this time but as a goal it might not be the case for eternity.
SB
“You may not feel outstandingly robust, but if you are an average-sized adult you will contain within your modest frame no less than 7 X 10^18 joules of potential energy—enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs, assuming you knew how to liberate it and really wished to make a point."
1
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:51 - Sep 11 with 745 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:27 - Sep 11 by StokieBlue
You've not implemented any of those in regards to Myanmar though - you've not mentioned it at all in your reply and it's essentially exactly the same thing except they are actually removing existing settlements.
I don't disagree with any of those points, I'd be interested to hear an expanded version of (C) though. How far does taking sides go? What would be taking sides in this case? I'm interested to know how you think it should play out from the UK perspective.
SB
"I've* not implemented them?!
Look, let's talk about Myanmar by all means. It's a shocking situation. Just struggling to see why you're asking me to go into it now.
We've been actively fiddling about and taking sides in the Middle East for hundreds of years and have seemingly learnt nothing.
0
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:52 - Sep 11 with 742 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:46 - Sep 11 by GlasgowBlue
A one state solution isn’t viable. Israel is the only Jewish state in the whole of the world. There are over 50 Islamic states and even more Christian.
Israel was created as a safe haven for Jews in their historic homeland after six million were exterminated in the Holocaust. This followed two millennia of persecution across the world.
With antisemitism on the rise across the world, the need for a Jewish homeland is even more necessary. With hostile Arab neighbours surrounding it, how long to you think the Jewish people would last in a one nation state?
Nine if the above excuses the actions of the current Israeli government which is reprehensible.
It's an aim, GB. One which would require generations of change. The current political situation on both sides only exacerbates the problems. If you think that both sides are incapable of cultural change and will for ever see each other as natural ethnic/religious enemies, when in fact their beliefs and histories are richly, deeply intertwined, then I can see why you wouldn't think it could ever happen.
I just hope that it could.
"We need a man in charge of boys, they wont like it up em, but they'd rather it be coming from their gaffer than those broom wrangling wannabes in league 1."
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:03 - Sep 11 by Darth_Koont
Very good. And insane that we've effectively chosen Saudi Arabia as an ally and Iran as an enemy based on what we know about how that approach enables one and threatens the other to keep tensions high.
It also says we'll put our morals to the side to insert ourselves into the region and get the financial benefits (of course, we chose Saudi Arabia because they have the biggest wallets). After all, there's not much money in peacekeeping.
For someone who is so vocal about anti-semitism in UK politics, Israel and Palestine your understanding of the Middle East is rather warped if you think that video is "very good". In actual fact the video is shockingly awful.
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:52 - Sep 11 by footers
It's an aim, GB. One which would require generations of change. The current political situation on both sides only exacerbates the problems. If you think that both sides are incapable of cultural change and will for ever see each other as natural ethnic/religious enemies, when in fact their beliefs and histories are richly, deeply intertwined, then I can see why you wouldn't think it could ever happen.
I just hope that it could.
It’s an honourable aim but fear not a realistic one.
I get the feeling you seeing a model based on South Africa. I see an outcome worse than that in Zimbabwe.
The Hamas charter clearly states that all Jews should be cleansed from the Middle East. Even the founder of BDS, which people think is a pressure group to get fairer treatment for the Oalestinian people, has stated that their aim is to eradicate the state of Israel.
Then we have Iraq, Iran, Syria etc who want a Jew free Middle East.
Like I say, an honourable aim but not one that we will ever see.
"History is made, sadly, by people who are bystanders and do nothing. Their inaction is an excuse and a cover for intolerance".
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 10:46 - Sep 11 by GlasgowBlue
A one state solution isn’t viable. Israel is the only Jewish state in the whole of the world. There are over 50 Islamic states and even more Christian.
Israel was created as a safe haven for Jews in their historic homeland after six million were exterminated in the Holocaust. This followed two millennia of persecution across the world.
With antisemitism on the rise across the world, the need for a Jewish homeland is even more necessary. With hostile Arab neighbours surrounding it, how long to you think the Jewish people would last in a one nation state?
Nine if the above excuses the actions of the current Israeli government which is reprehensible.
I think it would be nice if there was a safe haven for Palestinian people in, say, Palestine.
4
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 11:51 - Sep 11 with 613 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 11:35 - Sep 11 by GlasgowBlue
I’m sorry Darth. I had assumed English was your first language.
What was it in my post that you didn’t understand?
Well, for someone who is so dismissive of a one-state solution, I’m surprised you’re so passive and accepting of the gradual disappearance of the two-state solution.
Seems to be a lot of people using the two-state solution as something to say rather than believe or actively defend.
1
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 12:21 - Sep 11 with 569 views
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 11:51 - Sep 11 by Darth_Koont
Well, for someone who is so dismissive of a one-state solution, I’m surprised you’re so passive and accepting of the gradual disappearance of the two-state solution.
Seems to be a lot of people using the two-state solution as something to say rather than believe or actively defend.
Where have I been passive and accepting of the gradual disappearance of the two-state solution?
Edit. Well?
[Post edited 11 Sep 2019 13:43]
"History is made, sadly, by people who are bystanders and do nothing. Their inaction is an excuse and a cover for intolerance".
When you delegitimise and marginalise critics then you're free to do this on 11:29 - Sep 11 by GlasgowBlue
It’s an honourable aim but fear not a realistic one.
I get the feeling you seeing a model based on South Africa. I see an outcome worse than that in Zimbabwe.
The Hamas charter clearly states that all Jews should be cleansed from the Middle East. Even the founder of BDS, which people think is a pressure group to get fairer treatment for the Oalestinian people, has stated that their aim is to eradicate the state of Israel.
Then we have Iraq, Iran, Syria etc who want a Jew free Middle East.
Like I say, an honourable aim but not one that we will ever see.
An even more radical solution:
Tell all parties involved that god doesn't exist.
Region-wide introduction of the donner bagel.
I can vouch personally for the second bit. There's no way any fair-minded person could eat one of those and continue being aggressive. It's the best of both worlds.
"We need a man in charge of boys, they wont like it up em, but they'd rather it be coming from their gaffer than those broom wrangling wannabes in league 1."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
