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.
They have a vested interest in stirring it up. That's why Hamas and Gaza is the flashpoint, rather than the Fatah and the West Bank, despite the fact it's the latter area where settler incursions are a serious problem. Hamas being a client of Tehran and their main point of contact for direct action (Hezbollah being far to cautious and not wanting to upset the applecart in Lebanon).
Northern Ireland, South Africa - great examples of situations where the poison has been drawn from a long-running sore by a hmanitarian and compromising approach. But both needed outstanding leaders, both within the warring communities and supporting them among the powers aligned on ether side. I can't currently see anyone who fulfills that role, whether in Israel/Palestine or outside.
While there are leaders prepared to pander to the most hateful elements and eschewing all compromise, in order to stay in power, backed by people outside who magnify the distress of one community or other to their own ends, if nobody is prepared to take a step back, putting away the decades of aggravation, then the situation will continue it's miserable festering.
Neither a one- or two-state solution will be the answer while the above remains true.
Sorry Guthers. You’re re-stating your position but not addressing the point.
If you take away or at least significantly address underlying injustice in the lived reality of Palestinians, how do extremist arguments or these vested-interest arguments maintain anything like the same power?
Actually, we’re seeing the currently unaddressed situation escalating the violence and fuelling the rhetoric on the ground and in the region. After all, it’s much easier to see Israel as a destabilising and unjust power and that the too supportive West is unconcerned about brown people and more concerned about its own interests and self-serving narratives when that is essentially what’s actually happening.
He has a very strong record of condemning Putin. Certainly compared to the vast majority of our politicians and leaders over the past couple of decades.
The fact that he’s anti-war puts him on the wrong side when us Brits like to take sides, often for largely arbitrary and morally inconsistent reasons.
Has he ever said that the Russian invasion was even remotely justified? Even when criticising our self-interested, sphere of influence default position that has been a part of the rise of Putin and inevitably putting Ukraine and Putin on a collision course.
I mean a Russian nerve agent, made only by Russia, used on Russian dissidents who criticised Putin…could have been anyone…
What did he actually say though?
He just asked for the proper investigation to take place. Given our politics is dangerously driven by knee-jerk populism and building narratives more than establishing the facts, I don’t see any problem with that.
He just asked for the proper investigation to take place. Given our politics is dangerously driven by knee-jerk populism and building narratives more than establishing the facts, I don’t see any problem with that.
As I recall his cunning plan was to send a sample of the agent to Russia and ask them to confirm if it was theirs.
That plan was even met with derision from his own back benches.
And let's not even get started on the Stop The War coalition letter he put his name to, which basically condemned NATO for the Ukraine invasion. The man is an absolute danger.
[Post edited 14 Oct 2023 13:59]
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
As I recall his cunning plan was to send a sample of the agent to Russia and ask them to confirm if it was theirs.
That plan was even met with derision from his own back benches.
And let's not even get started on the Stop The War coalition letter he put his name to, which basically condemned NATO for the Ukraine invasion. The man is an absolute danger.
[Post edited 14 Oct 2023 13:59]
That says more about the state of our politicians and political discourse than a criticism of what Corbyn or indeed the Stop The War coalition were saying.
Corbyn’s greatest crime was heresy against the status quo and its self-serving dogma.
Sorry Guthers. You’re re-stating your position but not addressing the point.
If you take away or at least significantly address underlying injustice in the lived reality of Palestinians, how do extremist arguments or these vested-interest arguments maintain anything like the same power?
Actually, we’re seeing the currently unaddressed situation escalating the violence and fuelling the rhetoric on the ground and in the region. After all, it’s much easier to see Israel as a destabilising and unjust power and that the too supportive West is unconcerned about brown people and more concerned about its own interests and self-serving narratives when that is essentially what’s actually happening.
If Israel granted the Palestinians territory in which they could govern themselves, would Hamas give up their stated intent to eradicate Israel from the map? Would Tehran stop stirring up the situation to cause as many issues to Jerusalem as possible? It didn't happen in the mid 2000s and is unlikely in present circumstances. If there were no more rockets out of Gaza, would the religious right in the USA withdraw their support for settlements?
There are too many people with an interest in not addressing the underlying injustices, in perpetuating the situation. People in positions of power and influence. That's what we're fighting against with a desire for humanity and moderation.
He has a very strong record of condemning Putin. Certainly compared to the vast majority of our politicians and leaders over the past couple of decades.
The fact that he’s anti-war puts him on the wrong side when us Brits like to take sides, often for largely arbitrary and morally inconsistent reasons.
Has he ever said that the Russian invasion was even remotely justified? Even when criticising our self-interested, sphere of influence default position that has been a part of the rise of Putin and inevitably putting Ukraine and Putin on a collision course.
Certainly a Hamas apologist, whom he addressed as his friends and called them a force for peace and social justice.
Peace? Cutting open pregnant women, stabbing the baby before shooting the mother in the head.
Social Justice? Executing gays by throwing them off the roofs of buildings in Gaza.
He just asked for the proper investigation to take place. Given our politics is dangerously driven by knee-jerk populism and building narratives more than establishing the facts, I don’t see any problem with that.
The knee jerk "we stand with Israel" reaction of our government and oppsition isn't exactly a good look at the moment is it!!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Worth noting that when Corbyn said this, Hamas had already slaughtered hundreds of civilians.
As usual it’s good to check sources and source evidence. This from Wikipedia gives context to the quote. This is also shortly after Hamas became the elected leaders in Gaza and had a political route rather than just armed resistance/terrorism. And significantly had also agreed with Fatah to accept negotiations with Israel re: the 1967 borders.
From Wiki: At a meeting hosted by Stop the War Coalition in 2009, Corbyn said he invited "friends" from Hamas and Hezbollah to an event in parliament, referred to Hamas as "an organisation dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region" and said that the British government's labelling of Hamas as a terrorist organisation is "a big, big historical mistake".[120] Asked on Channel 4 News in July 2015 why he had called representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah "friends", Corbyn explained, "I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk," and that the specific occasion he used it was to introduce speakers from Hezbollah at a Parliamentary meeting about the Middle East. He said that he does not condone the actions of either organisation:
"Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree ... There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that".[121]
————
I think that’s fair enough. He’s not advocating, and never has advocated for violence per se, but a political route to end conflicts.
There’s much more of a case that the people who call themselves friends of Israel are aligning themselves with and condoning/arming an illegal occupier in the racist oppression of a people. But of course that’s all about supporting the Israeli people isn’t it? That position has certainly been sanitised by being part of the dominant and “acceptable” narrative.
As usual it’s good to check sources and source evidence. This from Wikipedia gives context to the quote. This is also shortly after Hamas became the elected leaders in Gaza and had a political route rather than just armed resistance/terrorism. And significantly had also agreed with Fatah to accept negotiations with Israel re: the 1967 borders.
From Wiki: At a meeting hosted by Stop the War Coalition in 2009, Corbyn said he invited "friends" from Hamas and Hezbollah to an event in parliament, referred to Hamas as "an organisation dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region" and said that the British government's labelling of Hamas as a terrorist organisation is "a big, big historical mistake".[120] Asked on Channel 4 News in July 2015 why he had called representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah "friends", Corbyn explained, "I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk," and that the specific occasion he used it was to introduce speakers from Hezbollah at a Parliamentary meeting about the Middle East. He said that he does not condone the actions of either organisation:
"Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree ... There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that".[121]
————
I think that’s fair enough. He’s not advocating, and never has advocated for violence per se, but a political route to end conflicts.
There’s much more of a case that the people who call themselves friends of Israel are aligning themselves with and condoning/arming an illegal occupier in the racist oppression of a people. But of course that’s all about supporting the Israeli people isn’t it? That position has certainly been sanitised by being part of the dominant and “acceptable” narrative.
Yep read it - there is no context to the quote. “I called them my friends but I don’t condone their actions. Honest guv’. Just the usual weasel words and literal backtracking from Dear Leader.
Nice to see you rolling out feeble excuses for him as per. He should have employed you as his spin doctor.
Yep read it - there is no context to the quote. “I called them my friends but I don’t condone their actions. Honest guv’. Just the usual weasel words and literal backtracking from Dear Leader.
Nice to see you rolling out feeble excuses for him as per. He should have employed you as his spin doctor.
So you think he does condone their actions? Where’s the context/source for that?
As usual it’s good to check sources and source evidence. This from Wikipedia gives context to the quote. This is also shortly after Hamas became the elected leaders in Gaza and had a political route rather than just armed resistance/terrorism. And significantly had also agreed with Fatah to accept negotiations with Israel re: the 1967 borders.
From Wiki: At a meeting hosted by Stop the War Coalition in 2009, Corbyn said he invited "friends" from Hamas and Hezbollah to an event in parliament, referred to Hamas as "an organisation dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region" and said that the British government's labelling of Hamas as a terrorist organisation is "a big, big historical mistake".[120] Asked on Channel 4 News in July 2015 why he had called representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah "friends", Corbyn explained, "I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk," and that the specific occasion he used it was to introduce speakers from Hezbollah at a Parliamentary meeting about the Middle East. He said that he does not condone the actions of either organisation:
"Does it mean I agree with Hamas and what it does? No. Does it mean I agree with Hezbollah and what they do? No. What it means is that I think to bring about a peace process, you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree ... There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas and I think everyone knows that".[121]
————
I think that’s fair enough. He’s not advocating, and never has advocated for violence per se, but a political route to end conflicts.
There’s much more of a case that the people who call themselves friends of Israel are aligning themselves with and condoning/arming an illegal occupier in the racist oppression of a people. But of course that’s all about supporting the Israeli people isn’t it? That position has certainly been sanitised by being part of the dominant and “acceptable” narrative.
It wasn’t just after Hamas were elected in Gaza. It was three years later. He also said these words after years of terrorist attacks carried out on Israeli civilians by Hamas.
This is the exact transcript.
Edit. What’s the point? You'll continue to make excuses for this vile man.
Yep read it - there is no context to the quote. “I called them my friends but I don’t condone their actions. Honest guv’. Just the usual weasel words and literal backtracking from Dear Leader.
Nice to see you rolling out feeble excuses for him as per. He should have employed you as his spin doctor.
It wasn’t just after Hamas were elected in Gaza. It was three years later. He also said these words after years of terrorist attacks carried out on Israeli civilians by Hamas.
This is the exact transcript.
Edit. What’s the point? You'll continue to make excuses for this vile man.
[Post edited 15 Oct 2023 9:57]
As I said, I don’t see any problem with that and the context of “peace, understanding and dialogue” which is the political route Corbyn is advocating.
How is it any different from someone who says they are a friend of Israel? In real terms that’s about supporting, arming and giving cover to an apartheid regime and its illegal occupation and racist oppression of millions. There’s almost no case that it’s about supporting peace, understanding and dialogue in the conflict given the massive power imbalance.
Shows the power of the accepted narrative that completely different standards are applied depending if you’re on the “right” side of the debate supporting power and the “wrong” side supporting the powerless.
It’s not a real hill. It’s a steaming pile of bad faith.
I’m perfectly happy defending this. Especially how it relates to the real world and real solutions for ending the conflict and moving towards a peaceful resolution.
You’d presumably have said similar about support for the Republican cause and a desire to see the IRA/Sinn Fein brought into peace talks. But that would have been just as wrong a “no negotiating with terrorists” knee-jerk reaction as history has proved.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
