|
Post by desman2 on Apr 15, 2024 22:29:42 GMT
She speaks a lot of sense, and of course you should always separate the Iranian people (some of the most welcoming and hospitable you'll ever meet) with the Islamic Republic government. And of course you should do the same when referencing Netanyahu's far right government with the largely Jewish population of Israel. Although ironically with the IHRA definition of antisemitism it becomes more difficult to do that without automatically being labelled an antisemite. There is no easy solution other than to try and somehow broker peace to allow those that live in the two countries (as well as others in the region) to reach their full potential and flourish. But I'm fucked if I have the answers......... Maybe we are the problem. Like that young lady pointed out, most people who take a side simply have no idea how the people of these countries view things. They simply attach themselves to one side or another usually voiced through their own political leaning.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Apr 15, 2024 22:38:54 GMT
She speaks a lot of sense, and of course you should always separate the Iranian people (some of the most welcoming and hospitable you'll ever meet) with the Islamic Republic government. And of course you should do the same when referencing Netanyahu's far right government with the largely Jewish population of Israel. Although ironically with the IHRA definition of antisemitism it becomes more difficult to do that without automatically being labelled an antisemite. There is no easy solution other than to try and somehow broker peace to allow those that live in the two countries (as well as others in the region) to reach their full potential and flourish. But I'm fucked if I have the answers......... Maybe we are the problem. Like that young lady pointed out, most people who take a side simply have no idea how the people of these countries view things. They simply attach themselves to one side or another usually voiced through their own political leaning. I say this all the time. We see things generally through the prism of "west" v "the rest" but the reality is that in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Eastern Europe the world view is very different..........
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Apr 15, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
Maybe we are the problem. Like that young lady pointed out, most people who take a side simply have no idea how the people of these countries view things. They simply attach themselves to one side or another usually voiced through their own political leaning. I say this all the time. We see things generally through the prism of "west" v "the rest" but the reality is that in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Eastern Europe the world view is very different.......... Totally agree with that. Most if not all of those areas you mention have in more recent times had problems with their own existence, whereas the " west " have had relative cushyness since WW2. And yet we still believe we have the experience to tell these people what they should be doing.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Apr 15, 2024 22:53:58 GMT
I say this all the time. We see things generally through the prism of "west" v "the rest" but the reality is that in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Eastern Europe the world view is very different.......... Totally agree with that. Most if not all of those areas you mention have in more recent times had problems with their own existence, whereas the " west " have had relative cushyness since WW2. And yet we still believe we have the experience to tell these people what they should be doing. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle unfortunately, but it would be nice if could click our fingers and go back to a time where we didn't think we were the arbiters of the world and get involved with the domestic politics of every country out there that had something we could benefit from........
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 15, 2024 23:11:01 GMT
Why on earth are we still letting this utter war mongering maniac on to our news channels?
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 15, 2024 23:30:37 GMT
Post by wannabee on Apr 15, 2024 23:30:37 GMT
My current thoughts Perhaps some issues are not solvable unless basic(s) mistakes are honestly addressed. If the players are not prepared to that ...no solution. The big mistake which materially impacts on the current situation was the creation of Israel ( or how it was created. I Know we could debate forever when the " problems " first occurred and who was to blame) I don't think a ( genuine) two state solution will now work. Neither country will honestly accept the existence of the other as neighbours , when each would like to see the extinction of the other.The powerful ( Israel ) would insist on having control over the " security" of Palestine, and it would never operate as a self governing country. Israel will never allow a return to the 1967 borders. So what probably will happen is the continued annihilation of the Gaza strip until the point comes that a " peace settlement " will be agreed....but in reality Gaza will just be a completely destroyed non functioning ruin.....and then the hope of the West is that everything will be forgotten, carry on as we were. Just one more thought I think this will polarise people across the world into Pro- Jew or Pro - Muslim....not anti Zionist/ antisemitic/ Islamaphobic/ anti Hamas distinctions....People like things to be " back and white". I too doubt that a Two State Solution is possible, I have debated this with CBUFAWKIPWH on here (I don't expect you to read every post) There has never been an Independent State called Palestine, it is an area historically inhabited by Arabs and controlled in part by Syria and Egypt in relatively recent times up to 1948/1967 The biggest impediment to a One State solution is that Israel is hell bent on administering an Apartheid Zionist State In my debate with CBUFAWKIPWH I referenced Northern Ireland as a previous Apartheid Statelet where the previous combatants came to recognise they could not gain a Military Victory, at least not one with a lasting Peace. It didn't preclude their different aspersions but they agreed to pursue them Politically and Peacefully It wouldn't remove ideological Nut Jobs wanting to establish a Shari'a or Zionist State but of the other current influential actors in the region Saudi would support Iran would not but Leaders change. Overarching to Israel accepting a fait accompli of an equal rights One State Solution requires a US President like Teddy Roosevelt who's Mantra was "Speak softly and carry a big stick" It is definitely in US interests to do this but I don't see the incumbent or whoever is next President having the Chutzpah to carry it off. With regard to your final paragraph my hope is that people would unite rather than polarise against both Islamists and Zionists and understand why, but you may be right.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Apr 16, 2024 0:04:00 GMT
The person who wrote that article is a former CIA agent. Iran has always denied any links to Al Qaeda and it doesn't make sense for them to be affiliated either. The common denominator between all those allegedly linked to Al Qaeda is they're all enemies of the US and most deny it too. Why would Iran admit to historically supporting Hezbollah and Hamas but not Al Qaeda? Probably because they most likely don't. Yeah, I don’t buy it. Here is another article discussing the relationship between Iran, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda: extremism.gwu.edu/al-qaeda-de-facto-leader-sayf-al-adlIran are a piece of shit regime just like Saudi. All they do is fund chaos. The only time they don’t is if that chaos can sit on their own front doorstep. The first article I sent about the first article I sent about the deaths of 500 people who protested for women’s rights two years ago shows as much. I mean, talk about blood on their hands. Of course, it wasn’t as big of a deal because no American-employed journalist was killed. That entire area is a swamp of corruption and hate. Yet, even amongst Muslim majority countries (where personal freedoms are deemed lower than in the “West”), Iran ranks amongst the worst - www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/freedom-muslim-world (right next to Saudi). I'm not here trying to say or suggest that Iran is a beacon of middle east democracy. I don't believe they're the dangerous perpetrator they're made out to be though. I'm sure many of us on here have seen the videos of Iran in the 1970s and how it used to be when it was more westernised for a period in history. Well if you want to talk about women's rights. Heres a comparison for education: Pre 1979 v Post 1979 42.33% Literacy (15–24) 97.70% 24.42% Literacy (>15) 79.23% 48,845 Students[88] 2,191,409 122,753 Graduates[89] 5,023,992 2.4% Graduates (%) 18.4% 19.7 Age at 1st marriage 23.4 And to expand further on that. Read up on the Iranian revolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). Women were hugely involved and pioneers in the Iranian revolution and their rights now are much better than they were before, and certainly much better than countries such as Saudi Arabia. Going back to your article. Mate it's just some American saying that a former Egyptian agent who is allegedly this Al qaeda leader is living in Iran. ISIS also occupy parts of Iran, I'm sure Al Qaeda may do too. Its a huge country bigger than all European countries aside from Russia. Over 3x the size of France. They did arrest this leader and have him in prison in the 2000s before doing a prisoner swap deal. Iran has fought in 4 wars against Al Qaeda and 3 against Isis in recent decades. Its just daft to suggest they're allies. All links between Iran and Al Qaeda are "alleged". Only a couple of years ago America were supporting the taliban and Al qaeda in a war: www.france24.com/en/20200310-taliban-fought-is-with-limited-us-military-support-us-general-revealswww.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/07/taliban-advances-as-u-s-completes-withdrawal.phpIn terms of the hijab it's a complicated history. Again I don't defend Irans position on many things including the hijab but they're much more complex topics than portrayed. I'm not a middle east foreign affairs expert or a historian so understandably I may be incorrect. But compared to all of the middle east, I don't personally see Iran as the big scary wolf they're made out as.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 16, 2024 4:24:00 GMT
My current thoughts Perhaps some issues are not solvable unless basic(s) mistakes are honestly addressed. If the players are not prepared to that ...no solution. The big mistake which materially impacts on the current situation was the creation of Israel ( or how it was created. I Know we could debate forever when the " problems " first occurred and who was to blame) I don't think a ( genuine) two state solution will now work. Neither country will honestly accept the existence of the other as neighbours , when each would like to see the extinction of the other.The powerful ( Israel ) would insist on having control over the " security" of Palestine, and it would never operate as a self governing country. Israel will never allow a return to the 1967 borders. So what probably will happen is the continued annihilation of the Gaza strip until the point comes that a " peace settlement " will be agreed....but in reality Gaza will just be a completely destroyed non functioning ruin.....and then the hope of the West is that everything will be forgotten, carry on as we were. Just one more thought I think this will polarise people across the world into Pro- Jew or Pro - Muslim....not anti Zionist/ antisemitic/ Islamaphobic/ anti Hamas distinctions....People like things to be " back and white". I too doubt that a Two State Solution is possible, I have debated this with CBUFAWKIPWH on here (I don't expect you to read every post) There has never been an Independent State called Palestine, it is an area historically inhabited by Arabs and controlled in part by Syria and Egypt in relatively recent times up to 1948/1967 The biggest impediment to a One State solution is that Israel is hell bent on administering an Apartheid Zionist State In my debate with CBUFAWKIPWH I referenced Northern Ireland as a previous Apartheid Statelet where the previous combatants came to recognise they could not gain a Military Victory, at least not one with a lasting Peace. It didn't preclude their different aspersions but they agreed to pursue them Politically and Peacefully It wouldn't remove ideological Nut Jobs wanting to establish a Shari'a or Zionist State but of the other current influential actors in the region Saudi would support Iran would not but Leaders change. Overarching to Israel accepting a fait accompli of an equal rights One State Solution requires a US President like Teddy Roosevelt who's Mantra was "Speak softly and carry a big stick" It is definitely in US interests to do this but I don't see the incumbent or whoever is next President having the Chutzpah to carry it off. With regard to your final paragraph my hope is that people would unite rather than polarise against both Islamists and Zionists and understand why, but you may be right. I'm aware of the non existence of a country called " Palestine" , Im just using the word in respect of a hypothetical future state. I am aware of some of your discussion with CB, I'm just expressing my current view. I largely agree with Prestwich and Gawa on the issue ( eg the interpretation of world events through Western eyes) but don't feel the need to comment on every aspect of the debate, particularly as some posters are much much more knowledgeable than me and are doing an excellent job of keeping us informed ( and of course, sources can be checked in this technological post truth age). I too hope that " Muslims and the West" or " Jews/ Arabs" or however we frame it live in peace and harmony, and of course there will be examples of where this happens at the moment, but ( generally speaking) I think people may " take sides" as the " battle" plays out.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 6:23:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 6:23:11 GMT
Both Isreal and Iran are the aggressors and the current leadership in Iran will not recognise the existence of Israel and have repeatedly stated they want it destroyed - as do Hamas. You are underplaying Iran's intent. Equally there are members of the current Isreali government who want to either get rid of all Palestinians from the state of Israel - either that or introduce some form of apartheid. The West do not support the Isreali government's aim of eradicating the Palestinians and they are putting pressure on Israel to formulate a plan for the future of Gaza. They are also working behind the scenes with the likes of Saudi Arabia to facilitate a two state solution. I have been completely clear about my position on this - now it's your turn to answer my question - should the West stop supporting Isreal's right to exist and let Iran achieve it's aim of eradicating it? I don't accept the premise of your question or your characterisation of the current situation. Let's be clear here, Netanyahu himself has championed the existence of Hamas for several years, as a means to PREVENTING a two state solution. The Palestinian authority recognises Israel's right to exist but as long as Hamas keeps control, then how could anybody expect Israel to accept a two state solution? Netanyahu has told us that it is better for Israel if Hamas continues to exist. The Iranian people don't want to go to war with Israel, period and currently, neither do the Islamic Republic. Apartheid already exists in Israel. The money and the bombs being used to carry out the genocide in Gaza, is being supplied by the West, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the West isn't supporting Israel's intentions in this regard. Are the West genuinely supporting Israel's right to exist, or are they supporting Israel's right, to do pretty much whatever the fuck it likes? And I don't agree with your characterisation of the current situation. And every time I ask you for your idea of a solution you (and others) refuse to provide one. Of course Netanyahu has championed Hamas as a means of preventing a two state solution. Both Netanyahu and Hamas (and Iran) are on the same page - they both want to eradicate the other side. I'm sure the majority of people in Iran don't want to kill Isreali's and I'm sure the majority of Isreali's don't want to kill Iranians. However the Islamic Republic would go to war with Israel in order to fulfill their stated aim - to eradicate the state of Israel. The only reason they don't go for all out war is because they know that the combined military power of Israel and their Western supporters would result in defeat. Apartheid does indeed exist in Israel and will continue to do something until a two state suction is finally implemented. I simply do not believe the West is supplying Isreal with arms in order to allow Israel to commit genocide. I believe they are supplying arms to Israel to help preserve it's existence (because they have neighbours who would eradicate Israel if they had the chance) and in support of Isreal's right to defend itself against a terrorist organisation in Hamas. However I do believe the Netanyahu government is taking the piss and deliberately going beyond their stated remit and are looking to kill as many Palestinians as they possibly can and if they can remove all Palestinians from Gaza they would. The West are not on board with this and are putting the Isreali government under increasing pressure to come up with a long term humanitarian solution once they have defeated Hamas. So no the West is not supporting Isreal's right to do what the fuck it likes. It is treading a fine line in supporting Isreal's right to exist and putting pressure on it to find a long term solution and that long term solution is the recognition of a Palestinian state that in turn recognises the state of Isreal. And the West is part of an ongoing effort in the region to make this happen.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 6:26:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 16, 2024 6:26:38 GMT
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 6:44:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 6:44:34 GMT
My current thoughts Perhaps some issues are not solvable unless basic(s) mistakes are honestly addressed. If the players are not prepared to that ...no solution. The big mistake which materially impacts on the current situation was the creation of Israel ( or how it was created. I Know we could debate forever when the " problems " first occurred and who was to blame) I don't think a ( genuine) two state solution will now work. Neither country will honestly accept the existence of the other as neighbours , when each would like to see the extinction of the other.The powerful ( Israel ) would insist on having control over the " security" of Palestine, and it would never operate as a self governing country. Israel will never allow a return to the 1967 borders. So what probably will happen is the continued annihilation of the Gaza strip until the point comes that a " peace settlement " will be agreed....but in reality Gaza will just be a completely destroyed non functioning ruin.....and then the hope of the West is that everything will be forgotten, carry on as we were. Just one more thought I think this will polarise people across the world into Pro- Jew or Pro - Muslim....not anti Zionist/ antisemitic/ Islamaphobic/ anti Hamas distinctions....People like things to be " back and white". I too doubt that a Two State Solution is possible, I have debated this with CBUFAWKIPWH on here (I don't expect you to read every post) There has never been an Independent State called Palestine, it is an area historically inhabited by Arabs and controlled in part by Syria and Egypt in relatively recent times up to 1948/1967 The biggest impediment to a One State solution is that Israel is hell bent on administering an Apartheid Zionist State In my debate with CBUFAWKIPWH I referenced Northern Ireland as a previous Apartheid Statelet where the previous combatants came to recognise they could not gain a Military Victory, at least not one with a lasting Peace. It didn't preclude their different aspersions but they agreed to pursue them Politically and Peacefully It wouldn't remove ideological Nut Jobs wanting to establish a Shari'a or Zionist State but of the other current influential actors in the region Saudi would support Iran would not but Leaders change. Overarching to Israel accepting a fait accompli of an equal rights One State Solution requires a US President like Teddy Roosevelt who's Mantra was "Speak softly and carry a big stick" It is definitely in US interests to do this but I don't see the incumbent or whoever is next President having the Chutzpah to carry it off. With regard to your final paragraph my hope is that people would unite rather than polarise against both Islamists and Zionists and understand why, but you may be right. Well fair enough you have got behind a one state solution as the way forward. Personally I don't have a problem with that and it would be great if it could happen. However there appears to be no-one looking to make this happen whereas there are a number of players looking to bring about a two state solution. I may be being unduly unrealistic about a two state solution but a one state solution appears even less likely at the moment. There are some parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland but there are some fundamental differences that make your analogy a bit flakey. The Protestants and the Catholics did put down their arms but the solution was not a single state. Northern Ireland is not an independent state - it is part of the UK. Also built into the political solution is the possibility of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland if a majority so wish. And at some point that will happen. The solution in the case of Northern Ireland isn't a one state solution, it is a two state solution - the two states being the UK and Ireland. And at no point in the conflict have the two states denied the other the right to exist or engaged in military/terrorist activity to bring this about. I think you are pushing the analogy way too far.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 6:56:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 6:56:34 GMT
Yeah, I don’t buy it. Here is another article discussing the relationship between Iran, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda: extremism.gwu.edu/al-qaeda-de-facto-leader-sayf-al-adlIran are a piece of shit regime just like Saudi. All they do is fund chaos. The only time they don’t is if that chaos can sit on their own front doorstep. The first article I sent about the first article I sent about the deaths of 500 people who protested for women’s rights two years ago shows as much. I mean, talk about blood on their hands. Of course, it wasn’t as big of a deal because no American-employed journalist was killed. That entire area is a swamp of corruption and hate. Yet, even amongst Muslim majority countries (where personal freedoms are deemed lower than in the “West”), Iran ranks amongst the worst - www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/freedom-muslim-world (right next to Saudi). I'm not here trying to say or suggest that Iran is a beacon of middle east democracy. I don't believe they're the dangerous perpetrator they're made out to be though. I'm sure many of us on here have seen the videos of Iran in the 1970s and how it used to be when it was more westernised for a period in history. Well if you want to talk about women's rights. Heres a comparison for education: Pre 1979 v Post 1979 42.33% Literacy (15–24) 97.70% 24.42% Literacy (>15) 79.23% 48,845 Students[88] 2,191,409 122,753 Graduates[89] 5,023,992 2.4% Graduates (%) 18.4% 19.7 Age at 1st marriage 23.4 And to expand further on that. Read up on the Iranian revolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). Women were hugely involved and pioneers in the Iranian revolution and their rights now are much better than they were before, and certainly much better than countries such as Saudi Arabia. Going back to your article. Mate it's just some American saying that a former Egyptian agent who is allegedly this Al qaeda leader is living in Iran. ISIS also occupy parts of Iran, I'm sure Al Qaeda may do too. Its a huge country bigger than all European countries aside from Russia. Over 3x the size of France. They did arrest this leader and have him in prison in the 2000s before doing a prisoner swap deal. Iran has fought in 4 wars against Al Qaeda and 3 against Isis in recent decades. Its just daft to suggest they're allies. All links between Iran and Al Qaeda are "alleged". Only a couple of years ago America were supporting the taliban and Al qaeda in a war: www.france24.com/en/20200310-taliban-fought-is-with-limited-us-military-support-us-general-revealswww.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/07/taliban-advances-as-u-s-completes-withdrawal.phpIn terms of the hijab it's a complicated history. Again I don't defend Irans position on many things including the hijab but they're much more complex topics than portrayed. I'm not a middle east foreign affairs expert or a historian so understandably I may be incorrect. But compared to all of the middle east, I don't personally see Iran as the big scary wolf they're made out as. The Shah of Iran was a hated western puppet. That regime created the conditions of resentment that lead to today's repressive theocracy. Your representation of the position of women in Iran is unreal. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests. Women have been systematically raped, beaten and killed protesting against the Iranian government - you are way off the mark on this one. There are many people in Iran who would like to see the current Theocracy removed and a more Western style democracy introduced but unlike the regime under the Shah this has to come from within. Until that happens (and I hope it does) Iran is a massive problem in terms of peace in the region and treatment of its own people, especially women.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 6:57:24 GMT
via mobile
gawa likes this
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 16, 2024 6:57:24 GMT
I too doubt that a Two State Solution is possible, I have debated this with CBUFAWKIPWH on here (I don't expect you to read every post) There has never been an Independent State called Palestine, it is an area historically inhabited by Arabs and controlled in part by Syria and Egypt in relatively recent times up to 1948/1967 The biggest impediment to a One State solution is that Israel is hell bent on administering an Apartheid Zionist State In my debate with CBUFAWKIPWH I referenced Northern Ireland as a previous Apartheid Statelet where the previous combatants came to recognise they could not gain a Military Victory, at least not one with a lasting Peace. It didn't preclude their different aspersions but they agreed to pursue them Politically and Peacefully It wouldn't remove ideological Nut Jobs wanting to establish a Shari'a or Zionist State but of the other current influential actors in the region Saudi would support Iran would not but Leaders change. Overarching to Israel accepting a fait accompli of an equal rights One State Solution requires a US President like Teddy Roosevelt who's Mantra was "Speak softly and carry a big stick" It is definitely in US interests to do this but I don't see the incumbent or whoever is next President having the Chutzpah to carry it off. With regard to your final paragraph my hope is that people would unite rather than polarise against both Islamists and Zionists and understand why, but you may be right. Well fair enough you have got behind a one state solution as the way forward. Personally I don't have a problem with that and it would be great if it could happen. However there appears to be no-one looking to make this happen whereas there are a number of players looking to bring about a two state solution. I may be being unduly unrealistic about a two state solution but a one state solution appears even less likely at the moment. There are some parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland but there are some fundamental differences that make your analogy a bit flakey. The Protestants and the Catholics did put down their arms but the solution was not a single state. Northern Ireland is not an independent state - it is part of the UK. Also built into the political solution is the possibility of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland if a majority so wish. And at some point that will happen. The solution in the case of Northern Ireland isn't a one state solution, it is a two state solution - the two states being the UK and Ireland. And at no point in the conflict have the two states denied the other the right to exist or engaged in military/terrorist activity to bring this about. I think you are pushing the analogy way too far. I think the time has passed for a genuine Two state solution. A Palestinian state would not be allowed to be a true state. Each state $would be the home to some people who would want to destroy the other stste. Borders could not be agreed, but opposed. I'd prefer a genuine one state....but pragmacally that is also a complete non starter. Israel and the West will never lose their grip on power. IMO eventually I think Israel will technically " withdraw " having destroyed Gaza and leave it with reduced borders and basically ....misery, no future. Whether an " agreement " or solution is in place will be irrelevant. Then it will fade in importantance in the Western psyche/ overt politics/ media. Then sporadic unrest and terrorism and the issue will arise for future generations. Of course I could be completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 8:00:11 GMT
Well fair enough you have got behind a one state solution as the way forward. Personally I don't have a problem with that and it would be great if it could happen. However there appears to be no-one looking to make this happen whereas there are a number of players looking to bring about a two state solution. I may be being unduly unrealistic about a two state solution but a one state solution appears even less likely at the moment. There are some parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland but there are some fundamental differences that make your analogy a bit flakey. The Protestants and the Catholics did put down their arms but the solution was not a single state. Northern Ireland is not an independent state - it is part of the UK. Also built into the political solution is the possibility of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland if a majority so wish. And at some point that will happen. The solution in the case of Northern Ireland isn't a one state solution, it is a two state solution - the two states being the UK and Ireland. And at no point in the conflict have the two states denied the other the right to exist or engaged in military/terrorist activity to bring this about. I think you are pushing the analogy way too far. I think the time has passed for a genuine Two state solution. A Palestinian state would not be allowed to be a true state. Each state $would be the home to some people who would want to destroy the other stste. Borders could not be agreed, but opposed. I'd prefer a genuine one state....but pragmacally that is also a complete non starter. Israel and the West will never lose their grip on power. IMO eventually I think Israel will technically " withdraw " having destroyed Gaza and leave it with reduced borders and basically ....misery, no future. Whether an " agreement " or solution is in place will be irrelevant. Then it will fade in importantance in the Western psyche/ overt politics/ media. Then sporadic unrest and terrorism and the issue will arise for future generations. Of course I could be completely wrong. The two state solution is very much on the table and is closer than it has been in years. The UK government (through Cameron) has declared it would be prepared recognise a Palestinian state before the details had been ironed out. Saudi Arabia has said it would recognise the state of Israel if a Palestinian state is recognised - that is massive. There are some big players trying to make this happen behind the scenes. Much as I would like to see a one state solution as far as I'm aware no-one with a realistic chance of success is trying to make this happen. I don't think the West will simply walk away from the problem - if they do the cycle of violence will just repeat. The pressure on Israel by the West to accept a long term solution has never been greater. It will require the Netenyahu government getting thrown out of power but that is also looking quite likely. I don't think you are completely wrong and if the West just walk away and turn a blind eye you are probably right. I just don't think they will do that.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 8:21:11 GMT
I don't accept the premise of your question or your characterisation of the current situation. Let's be clear here, Netanyahu himself has championed the existence of Hamas for several years, as a means to PREVENTING a two state solution. The Palestinian authority recognises Israel's right to exist but as long as Hamas keeps control, then how could anybody expect Israel to accept a two state solution? Netanyahu has told us that it is better for Israel if Hamas continues to exist. The Iranian people don't want to go to war with Israel, period and currently, neither do the Islamic Republic. Apartheid already exists in Israel. The money and the bombs being used to carry out the genocide in Gaza, is being supplied by the West, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the West isn't supporting Israel's intentions in this regard. Are the West genuinely supporting Israel's right to exist, or are they supporting Israel's right, to do pretty much whatever the fuck it likes? And I don't agree with your characterisation of the current situation. And every time I ask you for your idea of a solution you (and others) refuse to provide one. This is simply not true. Right from the beginning, I have suggested to you that the only way peace can be achieved in the ME, is by us seeing a diametric shift in the attitudes of the West (particularly the US and the UK) in regard to Israel. For decades now, Israel has acted with impunity. It has had as many UN resolutions levied against it, as all the other nations on earth combined! But these resolutions end up carrying no clout whatsoever because ultimately, the US and the UK simply veto any proposed sanctions against them. You on the other hand, have suggested that peace has to start within Israel itself, we fundamentally disagree, which is fine but please, don't suggest I've avoided any discussion on a possible solution, that is patently untrue. As for whether we should be looking towards a one or two state solution, that for me, is jumping the gun massively and is so far down the road, that it makes dialogue over it pointless at this stage. In my opinion, Israel needs to be treated as a pariah state, in the same way that South Africa was in the 70's and the 80's and literally be brought to it's knees through severe economic and political sanctions and when we reach a point where Israel realises that it can no longer simply do what the fuck it wants (which it has for decades) because the world no longer accepts it's brutal policy of apartheid, it is at this point that we can begin to discuss more practical solutions to move forward. Without this shift from the West, there will never be peace in the ME and the violence will simply continue for decades more. Israel won't ever negotiate in good faith, as long as it believes the West has it's back.
Of course Netanyahu has championed Hamas as a means of preventing a two state solution. Both Netanyahu and Hamas (and Iran) are on the same page - they both want to eradicate the other side.
We agree.
I'm sure the majority of people in Iran don't want to kill Isreali's and I'm sure the majority of Isreali's don't want to kill Iranians. However the Islamic Republic would go to war with Israel in order to fulfill their stated aim - to eradicate the state of Israel. The only reason they don't go for all out war is because they know that the combined military power of Israel and their Western supporters would result in defeat. As Prestwich pointed out to you the other day, we absolutely missed a trick when we didn't get round the table with the previous moderate Iranian regime of Hassan Rouhani due to the West's blinkered perception of Iran = bad and Israel = good. However, that doesn't mean that all is lost, there are powerful moderate clerics in Iran like Mowlavi Abdolhamid, who are completely opposed to any type of conflict with Israel and preach a message of peace between the two countries and a respect for each others religions. These voices need to be amplified by the West and especially by the Western media. As for the Islamic Republic, they don't want to go to war with Israel, for the very reasons that you have offered but protecting Israel's borders from Islamic fundamentalists, is very different from arming the Israelis to the teeth to slaughter tens of thousands of innocent civilians, indeed they are two completely different things. That's why I said that I didn't accept the premise of you question. And I really don't know why people so easily conflate the two, although of course this exactly what Israel wants us to do.
Apartheid does indeed exist in Israel and will continue to do something until a two state suction is finally implemented. We agree.
I simply do not believe the West is supplying Isreal with arms in order to allow Israel to commit genocide. I believe they are supplying arms to Israel to help preserve it's existence (because they have neighbours who would eradicate Israel if they had the chance) and in support of Isreal's right to defend itself against a terrorist organisation in Hamas.See my answer above.However I do believe the Netanyahu government is taking the piss and deliberately going beyond their stated remit and are looking to kill as many Palestinians as they possibly can and if they can remove all Palestinians from Gaza they would. The West are not on board with this and are putting the Isreali government under increasing pressure to come up with a long term humanitarian solution once they have defeated Hamas.
I think the position of the West is all over the place and quite frankly, they haven't got the first clue about what they're actually attempting to achieve, much to the detriment of the Palestinian people.
So no the West is not supporting Isreal's right to do what the fuck it likes. It is treading a fine line in supporting Isreal's right to exist and putting pressure on it to find a long term solution and that long term solution is the recognition of a Palestinian state that in turn recognises the state of Isreal. And the West is part of an ongoing effort in the region to make this happen. Again, see my answer above.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 16, 2024 8:28:37 GMT
I think the time has passed for a genuine Two state solution. A Palestinian state would not be allowed to be a true state. Each state $would be the home to some people who would want to destroy the other stste. Borders could not be agreed, but opposed. I'd prefer a genuine one state....but pragmacally that is also a complete non starter. Israel and the West will never lose their grip on power. IMO eventually I think Israel will technically " withdraw " having destroyed Gaza and leave it with reduced borders and basically ....misery, no future. Whether an " agreement " or solution is in place will be irrelevant. Then it will fade in importantance in the Western psyche/ overt politics/ media. Then sporadic unrest and terrorism and the issue will arise for future generations. Of course I could be completely wrong. The two state solution is very much on the table and is closer than it has been in years. The UK government (through Cameron) has declared it would be prepared recognise a Palestinian state before the details had been ironed out. Saudi Arabia has said it would recognise the state of Israel if a Palestinian state is recognised - that is massive. There are some big players trying to make this happen behind the scenes. Much as I would like to see a one state solution as far as I'm aware no-one with a realistic chance of success is trying to make this happen. I don't think the West will simply walk away from the problem - if they do the cycle of violence will just repeat. The pressure on Israel by the West to accept a long term solution has never been greater. It will require the Netenyahu government getting thrown out of power but that is also looking quite likely. I don't think you are completely wrong and if the West just walk away and turn a blind eye you are probably right. I just don't think they will do that. CB I hope you are right. Let's hope there is some solution that gives some semblance of " peace" to all the innocent people who have suffered on both sides. My reservation is that what the West may deem to be a solution, in reality is simply a " convenience " We have been complicit in turning a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinians since Israel was created.....I don't think the " solution " will be fair and just....it will just satisfy the West and the compliant observers, politicians and commentators.In other words Two states on paper is different from two states in practice. IMO
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 8:45:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by gawa on Apr 16, 2024 8:45:48 GMT
I'm not here trying to say or suggest that Iran is a beacon of middle east democracy. I don't believe they're the dangerous perpetrator they're made out to be though. I'm sure many of us on here have seen the videos of Iran in the 1970s and how it used to be when it was more westernised for a period in history. Well if you want to talk about women's rights. Heres a comparison for education: Pre 1979 v Post 1979 42.33% Literacy (15–24) 97.70% 24.42% Literacy (>15) 79.23% 48,845 Students[88] 2,191,409 122,753 Graduates[89] 5,023,992 2.4% Graduates (%) 18.4% 19.7 Age at 1st marriage 23.4 And to expand further on that. Read up on the Iranian revolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). Women were hugely involved and pioneers in the Iranian revolution and their rights now are much better than they were before, and certainly much better than countries such as Saudi Arabia. Going back to your article. Mate it's just some American saying that a former Egyptian agent who is allegedly this Al qaeda leader is living in Iran. ISIS also occupy parts of Iran, I'm sure Al Qaeda may do too. Its a huge country bigger than all European countries aside from Russia. Over 3x the size of France. They did arrest this leader and have him in prison in the 2000s before doing a prisoner swap deal. Iran has fought in 4 wars against Al Qaeda and 3 against Isis in recent decades. Its just daft to suggest they're allies. All links between Iran and Al Qaeda are "alleged". Only a couple of years ago America were supporting the taliban and Al qaeda in a war: www.france24.com/en/20200310-taliban-fought-is-with-limited-us-military-support-us-general-revealswww.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/07/taliban-advances-as-u-s-completes-withdrawal.phpIn terms of the hijab it's a complicated history. Again I don't defend Irans position on many things including the hijab but they're much more complex topics than portrayed. I'm not a middle east foreign affairs expert or a historian so understandably I may be incorrect. But compared to all of the middle east, I don't personally see Iran as the big scary wolf they're made out as. The Shah of Iran was a hated western puppet. That regime created the conditions of resentment that lead to today's repressive theocracy. Your representation of the position of women in Iran is unreal. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests. Women have been systematically raped, beaten and killed protesting against the Iranian government - you are way off the mark on this one. There are many people in Iran who would like to see the current Theocracy removed and a more Western style democracy introduced but unlike the regime under the Shah this has to come from within. Until that happens (and I hope it does) Iran is a massive problem in terms of peace in the region and treatment of its own people, especially women. I'm not trying to whitewash Irans recent history with women at all, I've said numerous times that I'm not implying they're a beacon of democracy. I'm simply saying they're no worse than many other countries in the region and I stand by that. What caused Iran to be more westernised? Well that was the 1953 coup led by the US and British military. And what predated that? The prime minister wanting to audit the British run Iranian Oil to ensure they were paying the proper royalties and limit their control on Iranian oil - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tatIf we were to flip things round a bit. It would be like Iranians controlling some of our public services. We vote to nationalise then. We then get invaded by Iran and Iraq who place a head of state who allies with them and then introduces sharia law. Something nationalists in the uk fear. And then so many years on we get control back of our country and remove sharia law. Then a few decades on you have people fighting to reapply parts of that sharia law. And the middle east and muslim countries then reporting biasly how the whole population wants to go back to sharia law when it's likely just a minority. Again. Not saying Iran is a beacon of human rights but its important context which relates to why we are where we are today. And going back to the western backed Shah royal family who were kept in power and controlled by the west. One of the descendants of the family has been living in America and was supported by the CIA under the Regan administration. The crown Prince of Iran told associated press in 2017, while living in America, "My focus right now is on liberating Iran, and I will find any means that I can, without compromising the national interests and independence, with anyone who is willing to give us a hand, whether it is the U.S. or the Saudis or the Israelis or whomever it is." At the end of the day the way I look at things is. Russia uses nukes, China uses nukes, west uses nukes. Russia uses propoganda, China uses propoganda, of course the west use propoganda. It would be absurd for us to use the same weapons as other super powers but not use propoganda ourselves. Of course we do. And in my opinion Iran is an example of that. We get drip fed stuff in our media which implies it was this land of the free western country because we see a few people walking down a street wearing denim. And we look no further. We hear a few protests over a hijab and we look no further. We don't get told about a monarchy running the country after doing a western backed coup. We don't get told about the elitism and corruption during their reign. We don't get told about how the coup started due to Iran wanting to get British hands over their oil. It's much more complex than our media makes out. There is no right or wrong in these arguments either. I know I'm only scratching the surface with my own research. But all of the above and the stuff I'm saying is easily available on Wikipedia. It's not random conspiracies. And it's important context which we never get told about in the uk. And when I read all this context and then look at what we get told in uk media. I can't help but feel that we are purposely only exposed to certain elements of Irans recent and historical past and thst sub consciously influences our views. But when you read in more depth you soon see things are much more complex.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 8:46:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 8:46:04 GMT
And I don't agree with your characterisation of the current situation. And every time I ask you for your idea of a solution you (and others) refuse to provide one. This is simply not true. Right from the beginning, I have suggested to you that the only way peace can be achieved in the ME, is by us seeing a diametric shift in the attitudes of the West (particularly the US and the UK) in regard to Israel. For decades now, Israel has acted with impunity. It has had as many UN resolutions levied against it, as all the other nations on earth combined! But these resolutions end up carrying no clout whatsoever because ultimately, the US and the UK simply veto any proposed sanctions against them. You on the other hand have suggested that peace has to start within Israel itself, we fundamentally disagree which is fine but please, don't suggest I've avoided any discussion on a possible solution, that is patently untrue. As for whether we should be looking towards a one or two state solution, that for me, is jumping the gun massively and is so far down the road, that it makes dialogue over it pointless at this stage. In my opinion, Israel needs to be treated as a pariah state, in the same way that South Africa was in the 70's and the 80's and literally be brought to it's knees through severe economic and political sanctions and when we reach a point where Israel realises that it can no longer simply to do what the fuck it wants because the world no longer accepts it's brutal policy of apartheid, it is at this point that we can begin to discuss more practical solutions to move forward. Without this shift from the West, there will never be peace in the ME and the violence will simply continues for decades more. Israel won't ever negotiate in good faith, as long as it believes the West has it's back. Of course Netanyahu has championed Hamas as a means of preventing a two state solution. Both Netanyahu and Hamas (and Iran) are on the same page - they both want to eradicate the other side.
We agree. I'm sure the majority of people in Iran don't want to kill Isreali's and I'm sure the majority of Isreali's don't want to kill Iranians. However the Islamic Republic would go to war with Israel in order to fulfill their stated aim - to eradicate the state of Israel. The only reason they don't go for all out war is because they know that the combined military power of Israel and their Western supporters would result in defeat. As Prestwich pointed out to you the other day, we absolutely missed a trick when we didn't get round the table with the previous moderate Iranian regime of Hassan Rouhani due to the West's blinkered perception of Iran = bad and Israel = good. However that doesn't mean that all is lost, there are powerful moderate clerics in Iran like Mowlavi Abdolhamid, who are completely opposed to any type of conflict with Israel and preach a message of peace between the two countries and a respect for each others religions. These voices need to be amplified by the West and especially by the Western media. As for the Islamic Republic, they don't want to go to war with Israel, for the very reasons that you have offered but protecting Israel borders from Islamic fundamentalists, is very different from arming the Israelis to the teeth to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians are two completely different things. That's why I said that I didn't accept the premise of you question. And I really don't know why people so easily conflate the two, although of course this exactly what Israel wants us to do. Apartheid does indeed exist in Israel and will continue to do something until a two state suction is finally implemented. We agree. I simply do not believe the West is supplying Isreal with arms in order to allow Israel to commit genocide. I believe they are supplying arms to Israel to help preserve it's existence (because they have neighbours who would eradicate Israel if they had the chance) and in support of Isreal's right to defend itself against a terrorist organisation in Hamas.See my answer above.However I do believe the Netanyahu government is taking the piss and deliberately going beyond their stated remit and are looking to kill as many Palestinians as they possibly can and if they can remove all Palestinians from Gaza they would. The West are not on board with this and are putting the Isreali government under increasing pressure to come up with a long term humanitarian solution once they have defeated Hamas. I think the position of the West is all over the place and quite frankly, they have got the first clue about what they're actually attempting to achieve, much to the detriment of the Palestinan people. So no the West is not supporting Isreal's right to do what the fuck it likes. It is treading a fine line in supporting Isreal's right to exist and putting pressure on it to find a long term solution and that long term solution is the recognition of a Palestinian state that in turn recognises the state of Isreal. And the West is part of an ongoing effort in the region to make this happen. Again, see my answer above. Thank you - that is clear description of your position. I'm sure there is the hope of a more tolerant regime in Iran but the fact is that isn't the current position and Iran is a threat to peace in the region. A moderate Theocracy might be a starting point but personally I think all Theocracies are a problem - the separation of church and state is a good thing. I don't have a problem with the West putting more pressure on Israel but the bottom line is they will continue to support Israel while there is a very real threat to its very existence. I think you are under estimating the amount of pressure the West is putting on the Isreali government to find a long term solution to the situation in Gaza and there are significant moves behind the scenes to bring about a two state solution. Yes more could be done but I don't think you are recognising the significant change in the relationships behind the scenes. Support for Israel is far from being as unconditional as it was before Israel's attack on Gaza. I suspect the West is waiting for the Netanyhu's government to collapse in order to move things on and that has to come from the people of Israel in the same way that the Palestinians in Gaza need to find an alternative voice to Hamas.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 8:46:46 GMT
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 8:46:46 GMT
The two state solution is very much on the table and is closer than it has been in years. The UK government (through Cameron) has declared it would be prepared recognise a Palestinian state before the details had been ironed out. Saudi Arabia has said it would recognise the state of Israel if a Palestinian state is recognised - that is massive. There are some big players trying to make this happen behind the scenes. Much as I would like to see a one state solution as far as I'm aware no-one with a realistic chance of success is trying to make this happen. I don't think the West will simply walk away from the problem - if they do the cycle of violence will just repeat. The pressure on Israel by the West to accept a long term solution has never been greater. It will require the Netenyahu government getting thrown out of power but that is also looking quite likely. I don't think you are completely wrong and if the West just walk away and turn a blind eye you are probably right. I just don't think they will do that. My reservation is that what the West may deem to be a solution, in reality is simply a " convenience " We have been complicit in turning a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinians since Israel was created.....I don't think the " solution " will be fair and just....it will just satisfy the West and the compliant observers, politicians and commentators.In other words Two states on paper is different from two states in practice. IMO
Exactly.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 9:25:01 GMT
Post by wannabee on Apr 16, 2024 9:25:01 GMT
I too doubt that a Two State Solution is possible, I have debated this with CBUFAWKIPWH on here (I don't expect you to read every post) There has never been an Independent State called Palestine, it is an area historically inhabited by Arabs and controlled in part by Syria and Egypt in relatively recent times up to 1948/1967 The biggest impediment to a One State solution is that Israel is hell bent on administering an Apartheid Zionist State In my debate with CBUFAWKIPWH I referenced Northern Ireland as a previous Apartheid Statelet where the previous combatants came to recognise they could not gain a Military Victory, at least not one with a lasting Peace. It didn't preclude their different aspersions but they agreed to pursue them Politically and Peacefully It wouldn't remove ideological Nut Jobs wanting to establish a Shari'a or Zionist State but of the other current influential actors in the region Saudi would support Iran would not but Leaders change. Overarching to Israel accepting a fait accompli of an equal rights One State Solution requires a US President like Teddy Roosevelt who's Mantra was "Speak softly and carry a big stick" It is definitely in US interests to do this but I don't see the incumbent or whoever is next President having the Chutzpah to carry it off. With regard to your final paragraph my hope is that people would unite rather than polarise against both Islamists and Zionists and understand why, but you may be right. Well fair enough you have got behind a one state solution as the way forward. Personally I don't have a problem with that and it would be great if it could happen. However there appears to be no-one looking to make this happen whereas there are a number of players looking to bring about a two state solution. I may be being unduly unrealistic about a two state solution but a one state solution appears even less likely at the moment. There are some parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland but there are some fundamental differences that make your analogy a bit flakey. The Protestants and the Catholics did put down their arms but the solution was not a single state. Northern Ireland is not an independent state - it is part of the UK. Also built into the political solution is the possibility of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland if a majority so wish. And at some point that will happen. The solution in the case of Northern Ireland isn't a one state solution, it is a two state solution - the two states being the UK and Ireland. And at no point in the conflict have the two states denied the other the right to exist or engaged in military/terrorist activity to bring this about. I think you are pushing the analogy way too far. I am not wedded to a One State Solution, any solution even an interim one most likely would be better than the current situation. Politicians including from UK mouth Platitudes about a Two State Solution but in reality while Israel holds the whip hand it has no intention or interest in reaching a solution and certainly not on the 1967 Borders with a right of return for Palestinians. The last serious attempt at a solution was Clinton's failed Camp David talks with Barak and Arafat 24 years ago. A solution could only be imposed on Israel through a strong US President by coercion and I don't see any of those on the Horizon Of course the Northern Ireland situation doesn't exactly mirror Israel/Palestine but there are more parallels than you give credit for. The main difference was that both combatants wanted to reach a settlement but it required an honest Broker, Clinton again, or more especially his Envoy George Mitchell to plot a course. The beauty of the GFA is its ambiguity it can and does mean different things to different people, but the solution is very much a One Statelet Solution with people coexisting. At the 2021 NI Census 32% considered themselves British 29% Irish 20% Northern Irish and the remainder a combination or none of the above. The Single biggest Political Party Sinn Fein hold the Office of First Minister in NI it also has 7 MPs elected to Westminster but they refuse to take their seats. Sinn Fein and its leaders are happy to meet UK Politicians in Belfast, London or Dublin it is the ambiguity which allows the accord to continue. Brexit and specifically the Protocol/Windsor Framework disturbed that ambiguity because Unionists were confronted with a different reality than which they wanted to believe. I also dispute the second part of your final paragraph. ROI needed to hold a Referendum to alter its Constitution to recognise the Statelet of NI to ratify GFA as it had never done so before. In the 1970s two Irish Government Ministers went on Trial for smuggling Arms and Ammunition from Europe to the IRA in NI. One Haughey went on to become Prime Minister. They were acquitted by a Jury who found they were acting on behalf of the Irish Government. I consider that to be engaging in Military Action.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 9:46:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 9:46:28 GMT
Well fair enough you have got behind a one state solution as the way forward. Personally I don't have a problem with that and it would be great if it could happen. However there appears to be no-one looking to make this happen whereas there are a number of players looking to bring about a two state solution. I may be being unduly unrealistic about a two state solution but a one state solution appears even less likely at the moment. There are some parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland but there are some fundamental differences that make your analogy a bit flakey. The Protestants and the Catholics did put down their arms but the solution was not a single state. Northern Ireland is not an independent state - it is part of the UK. Also built into the political solution is the possibility of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland if a majority so wish. And at some point that will happen. The solution in the case of Northern Ireland isn't a one state solution, it is a two state solution - the two states being the UK and Ireland. And at no point in the conflict have the two states denied the other the right to exist or engaged in military/terrorist activity to bring this about. I think you are pushing the analogy way too far. I am not wedded to a One State Solution, any solution even an interim one most likely would be better than the current situation. Politicians including from UK mouth Platitudes about a Two State Solution but in reality while Israel holds the whip hand it has no intention or interest in reaching a solution and certainly not on the 1967 Borders with a right of return for Palestinians. The last serious attempt at a solution was Clinton's failed Camp David talks with Barak and Arafat 24 years ago. A solution could only be imposed on Israel through a strong US President by coercion and I don't see any of those on the Horizon. Completely agree. This is where it has to begin, anything else is just window dressing, leading to decades of more killing and suffering.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Apr 16, 2024 9:54:48 GMT
The West Bank should actually be the real focus of the debate. Because pretty much every argument used to defend Israel's actions in Gaza with regards Hamas and against accusations of ethnic cleansing are blown away by what's happening there. It doesn't get brought up enough in the media, and those that go on mainstream news to talk about the plight of the Palestinian people should be bringing the narrative back to the West Bank whenever they can........
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Apr 16, 2024 10:25:12 GMT
Yeah, I don’t buy it. Here is another article discussing the relationship between Iran, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda: extremism.gwu.edu/al-qaeda-de-facto-leader-sayf-al-adlIran are a piece of shit regime just like Saudi. All they do is fund chaos. The only time they don’t is if that chaos can sit on their own front doorstep. The first article I sent about the first article I sent about the deaths of 500 people who protested for women’s rights two years ago shows as much. I mean, talk about blood on their hands. Of course, it wasn’t as big of a deal because no American-employed journalist was killed. That entire area is a swamp of corruption and hate. Yet, even amongst Muslim majority countries (where personal freedoms are deemed lower than in the “West”), Iran ranks amongst the worst - www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/freedom-muslim-world (right next to Saudi). I'm not here trying to say or suggest that Iran is a beacon of middle east democracy. I don't believe they're the dangerous perpetrator they're made out to be though. I'm sure many of us on here have seen the videos of Iran in the 1970s and how it used to be when it was more westernised for a period in history. Well if you want to talk about women's rights. Heres a comparison for education: Pre 1979 v Post 1979 42.33% Literacy (15–24) 97.70% 24.42% Literacy (>15) 79.23% 48,845 Students[88] 2,191,409 122,753 Graduates[89] 5,023,992 2.4% Graduates (%) 18.4% 19.7 Age at 1st marriage 23.4 And to expand further on that. Read up on the Iranian revolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). Women were hugely involved and pioneers in the Iranian revolution and their rights now are much better than they were before, and certainly much better than countries such as Saudi Arabia. Going back to your article. Mate it's just some American saying that a former Egyptian agent who is allegedly this Al qaeda leader is living in Iran. ISIS also occupy parts of Iran, I'm sure Al Qaeda may do too. Its a huge country bigger than all European countries aside from Russia. Over 3x the size of France. They did arrest this leader and have him in prison in the 2000s before doing a prisoner swap deal. Iran has fought in 4 wars against Al Qaeda and 3 against Isis in recent decades. Its just daft to suggest they're allies. All links between Iran and Al Qaeda are "alleged". Only a couple of years ago America were supporting the taliban and Al qaeda in a war: www.france24.com/en/20200310-taliban-fought-is-with-limited-us-military-support-us-general-revealswww.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/07/taliban-advances-as-u-s-completes-withdrawal.phpIn terms of the hijab it's a complicated history. Again I don't defend Irans position on many things including the hijab but they're much more complex topics than portrayed. I'm not a middle east foreign affairs expert or a historian so understandably I may be incorrect. But compared to all of the middle east, I don't personally see Iran as the big scary wolf they're made out as. I don't think there's a country in the world where the difference between government and its people is so clear. Persian culture is warm and welcoming, there is not that culture of sexism (or misogyny) you sometime get in countries of the region, they are highly educated and well read and not anti-"west" at all in the main. It's a tragedy that the Islamic Republic government are oppressing it's people (particularly women) when they have so much to offer to the world........
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 10:27:28 GMT
And I don't agree with your characterisation of the current situation. And every time I ask you for your idea of a solution you (and others) refuse to provide one. This is simply not true. Right from the beginning, I have suggested to you that the only way peace can be achieved in the ME, is by us seeing a diametric shift in the attitudes of the West (particularly the US and the UK) in regard to Israel. For decades now, Israel has acted with impunity. It has had as many UN resolutions levied against it, as all the other nations on earth combined! But these resolutions end up carrying no clout whatsoever because ultimately, the US and the UK simply veto any proposed sanctions against them. You on the other hand have suggested that peace has to start within Israel itself, we fundamentally disagree which is fine but please, don't suggest I've avoided any discussion on a possible solution, that is patently untrue. As for whether we should be looking towards a one or two state solution, that for me, is jumping the gun massively and is so far down the road, that it makes dialogue over it pointless at this stage. In my opinion, Israel needs to be treated as a pariah state, in the same way that South Africa was in the 70's and the 80's and literally be brought to it's knees through severe economic and political sanctions and when we reach a point where Israel realises that it can no longer simply to do what the fuck it wants because the world no longer accepts it's brutal policy of apartheid, it is at this point that we can begin to discuss more practical solutions to move forward. Without this shift from the West, there will never be peace in the ME and the violence will simply continues for decades more. Israel won't ever negotiate in good faith, as long as it believes the West has it's back. Of course Netanyahu has championed Hamas as a means of preventing a two state solution. Both Netanyahu and Hamas (and Iran) are on the same page - they both want to eradicate the other side.
We agree. I'm sure the majority of people in Iran don't want to kill Isreali's and I'm sure the majority of Isreali's don't want to kill Iranians. However the Islamic Republic would go to war with Israel in order to fulfill their stated aim - to eradicate the state of Israel. The only reason they don't go for all out war is because they know that the combined military power of Israel and their Western supporters would result in defeat. As Prestwich pointed out to you the other day, we absolutely missed a trick when we didn't get round the table with the previous moderate Iranian regime of Hassan Rouhani due to the West's blinkered perception of Iran = bad and Israel = good. However that doesn't mean that all is lost, there are powerful moderate clerics in Iran like Mowlavi Abdolhamid, who are completely opposed to any type of conflict with Israel and preach a message of peace between the two countries and a respect for each others religions. These voices need to be amplified by the West and especially by the Western media. As for the Islamic Republic, they don't want to go to war with Israel, for the very reasons that you have offered but protecting Israel borders from Islamic fundamentalists, is very different from arming the Israelis to the teeth to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians are two completely different things. That's why I said that I didn't accept the premise of you question. And I really don't know why people so easily conflate the two, although of course this exactly what Israel wants us to do. Apartheid does indeed exist in Israel and will continue to do something until a two state suction is finally implemented. We agree. I simply do not believe the West is supplying Isreal with arms in order to allow Israel to commit genocide. I believe they are supplying arms to Israel to help preserve it's existence (because they have neighbours who would eradicate Israel if they had the chance) and in support of Isreal's right to defend itself against a terrorist organisation in Hamas.See my answer above.However I do believe the Netanyahu government is taking the piss and deliberately going beyond their stated remit and are looking to kill as many Palestinians as they possibly can and if they can remove all Palestinians from Gaza they would. The West are not on board with this and are putting the Isreali government under increasing pressure to come up with a long term humanitarian solution once they have defeated Hamas. I think the position of the West is all over the place and quite frankly, they have got the first clue about what they're actually attempting to achieve, much to the detriment of the Palestinan people. So no the West is not supporting Isreal's right to do what the fuck it likes. It is treading a fine line in supporting Isreal's right to exist and putting pressure on it to find a long term solution and that long term solution is the recognition of a Palestinian state that in turn recognises the state of Isreal. And the West is part of an ongoing effort in the region to make this happen. Again, see my answer above. Thank you - that is clear description of your position. I'm sure there is the hope of a more tolerant regime in Iran but the fact is that isn't the current position and 1. Iran is a threat to peace in the region. A moderate Theocracy might be a starting point but personally I think all Theocracies are a problem - 2. the separation of church and state is a good thing.3. I don't have a problem with the West putting more pressure on Israel but the bottom line is they will continue to support Israel while there is a very real threat to its very existence. 4. I think you are under estimating the amount of pressure the West is putting on the Isreali government to find a long term solution to the situation in Gaza and there are significant moves behind the scenes to bring about a two state solution. Yes more could be done but 5. I don't think you are recognising the significant change in the relationships behind the scenes. Support for Israel is far from being as unconditional as it was before Israel's attack on Gaza. I suspect the West is waiting for the Netanyhu's government to collapse in order to move things on and that has to come from the people of Israel in the same way that the Palestinians in Gaza need to find an alternative voice to Hamas.
1. This is exactly the reason that Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus. So that now, attention will be deflected away from their atrocities in Gaza and onto Iran. Despite the provocation, Iran has said that as far as it is concerned, the incident is now over, they don't want a war with Israel. You just wait, it wont be too long before people attending pro Palestine marches will now be referred to as pro Iranian fanatics.
2. And yet the very heart of this conflict goes to the Israeli belief that God promised Palestine to them.
3. Again this is conflating the protection of Israel from Islamic fundamentalists, with recognising the plight of the Palestinian people, they are too separate things, although this is exactly what Israel wants the world to do.
4. There has not been a word of condemnation from the main players in the West over Israel's bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus. If the West can't pull Israel up over the outright murder of 16 generals and officers of a sovereign nation in it's own consulate, how much pressure do you think they are genuinely putting on Israel over other matters? Imagine what would have been the outcome, if the Israeli consulate had been bombed by the Iranian's in London last week and 16 Israeli's had been blown to smithereens ... it would be front page news around an outraged Western world and World War III would be about to begin and that is for certain.
5. See above.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 10:42:15 GMT
Utterly abhorrent ...
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 10:53:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 10:53:06 GMT
The Shah of Iran was a hated western puppet. That regime created the conditions of resentment that lead to today's repressive theocracy. Your representation of the position of women in Iran is unreal. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests. Women have been systematically raped, beaten and killed protesting against the Iranian government - you are way off the mark on this one. There are many people in Iran who would like to see the current Theocracy removed and a more Western style democracy introduced but unlike the regime under the Shah this has to come from within. Until that happens (and I hope it does) Iran is a massive problem in terms of peace in the region and treatment of its own people, especially women. I'm not trying to whitewash Irans recent history with women at all, I've said numerous times that I'm not implying they're a beacon of democracy. I'm simply saying they're no worse than many other countries in the region and I stand by that. What caused Iran to be more westernised? Well that was the 1953 coup led by the US and British military. And what predated that? The prime minister wanting to audit the British run Iranian Oil to ensure they were paying the proper royalties and limit their control on Iranian oil - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tatIf we were to flip things round a bit. It would be like Iranians controlling some of our public services. We vote to nationalise then. We then get invaded by Iran and Iraq who place a head of state who allies with them and then introduces sharia law. Something nationalists in the uk fear. And then so many years on we get control back of our country and remove sharia law. Then a few decades on you have people fighting to reapply parts of that sharia law. And the middle east and muslim countries then reporting biasly how the whole population wants to go back to sharia law when it's likely just a minority. Again. Not saying Iran is a beacon of human rights but its important context which relates to why we are where we are today. And going back to the western backed Shah royal family who were kept in power and controlled by the west. One of the descendants of the family has been living in America and was supported by the CIA under the Regan administration. The crown Prince of Iran told associated press in 2017, while living in America, "My focus right now is on liberating Iran, and I will find any means that I can, without compromising the national interests and independence, with anyone who is willing to give us a hand, whether it is the U.S. or the Saudis or the Israelis or whomever it is." At the end of the day the way I look at things is. Russia uses nukes, China uses nukes, west uses nukes. Russia uses propoganda, China uses propoganda, of course the west use propoganda. It would be absurd for us to use the same weapons as other super powers but not use propoganda ourselves. Of course we do. And in my opinion Iran is an example of that. We get drip fed stuff in our media which implies it was this land of the free western country because we see a few people walking down a street wearing denim. And we look no further. We hear a few protests over a hijab and we look no further. We don't get told about a monarchy running the country after doing a western backed coup. We don't get told about the elitism and corruption during their reign. We don't get told about how the coup started due to Iran wanting to get British hands over their oil. It's much more complex than our media makes out. There is no right or wrong in these arguments either. I know I'm only scratching the surface with my own research. But all of the above and the stuff I'm saying is easily available on Wikipedia. It's not random conspiracies. And it's important context which we never get told about in the uk. And when I read all this context and then look at what we get told in uk media. I can't help but feel that we are purposely only exposed to certain elements of Irans recent and historical past and thst sub consciously influences our views. But when you read in more depth you soon see things are much more complex. I'm sorry but there really isn't anything good to say about the Iranian regime and their treatment of women is appalling. There is a growing unrest about the regime among young people and given time I'm sure the it will collapse. And I am in no way advocating a return to the equivalent of the puppet regime under the Shah - it has to be a government of the Iranian people by the Iranian people. I'm also sure the majority ordinary Iranians are lovely people but if you think the Iranian regime isn't that bad you really aren't reading the room. Incidentally I know a couple who recently visited Iran who have travelled extensively in that area. Their conclusion was it is a beautiful country with an appallingly repressive regime and although they enjoyed the visit they were glad to get out - particularly as a woman. That might be anecdotal evidence but it certainly isn't western propaganda.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 11:03:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by gawa on Apr 16, 2024 11:03:50 GMT
I'm not here trying to say or suggest that Iran is a beacon of middle east democracy. I don't believe they're the dangerous perpetrator they're made out to be though. I'm sure many of us on here have seen the videos of Iran in the 1970s and how it used to be when it was more westernised for a period in history. Well if you want to talk about women's rights. Heres a comparison for education: Pre 1979 v Post 1979 42.33% Literacy (15–24) 97.70% 24.42% Literacy (>15) 79.23% 48,845 Students[88] 2,191,409 122,753 Graduates[89] 5,023,992 2.4% Graduates (%) 18.4% 19.7 Age at 1st marriage 23.4 And to expand further on that. Read up on the Iranian revolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). Women were hugely involved and pioneers in the Iranian revolution and their rights now are much better than they were before, and certainly much better than countries such as Saudi Arabia. Going back to your article. Mate it's just some American saying that a former Egyptian agent who is allegedly this Al qaeda leader is living in Iran. ISIS also occupy parts of Iran, I'm sure Al Qaeda may do too. Its a huge country bigger than all European countries aside from Russia. Over 3x the size of France. They did arrest this leader and have him in prison in the 2000s before doing a prisoner swap deal. Iran has fought in 4 wars against Al Qaeda and 3 against Isis in recent decades. Its just daft to suggest they're allies. All links between Iran and Al Qaeda are "alleged". Only a couple of years ago America were supporting the taliban and Al qaeda in a war: www.france24.com/en/20200310-taliban-fought-is-with-limited-us-military-support-us-general-revealswww.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/07/taliban-advances-as-u-s-completes-withdrawal.phpIn terms of the hijab it's a complicated history. Again I don't defend Irans position on many things including the hijab but they're much more complex topics than portrayed. I'm not a middle east foreign affairs expert or a historian so understandably I may be incorrect. But compared to all of the middle east, I don't personally see Iran as the big scary wolf they're made out as. I don't think there's a country in the world where the difference between government and its people is so clear. Persian culture is warm and welcoming, there is not that culture of sexism (or misogyny) you sometime get in countries of the region, they are highly educated and well read and not anti-"west" at all in the main. It's a tragedy that the Islamic Republic government are oppressing it's people (particularly women) when they have so much to offer to the world........ Not sure if being sarcastic or not here. I'm just saying they're no worse than other Middle Eastern countries. A clear example of western propoganda is the Rwanda stuff happening in the uk right now. Where for near 4 years we've been told how they're this rising democracy compared to all their neighbours. But hold on a second what's this: Source - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_RwandaSounds very similar to Russia doesn't it? But we don't have our government telling us for 4 years about how Russia is a safe democratic country which sets an example to its neighbours. Because just like with the Iranian Shah, or with what goes on in Israel or when it comes to women's rights in Saudi Arabia. The west don't actually care. Shock horror I know. As long as the government is playing to the west tune then we don't care about human rights. The common denominator between these terribly cruel regimes which we are told about is they refused to be governed by a western puppet. They refused to have their natural resources controlled by the west. They stood up for themselves to defend their cultures and sovereignty. If we want to talk about the great democracy in Iran, where the Pahlavi dynasty ran the regime with western backing then here is the democracy they had pre 1979: Where was the west then in stopping this undemocratic country which doesn't respect the wishes of the population? I'll tell you where, propping it up and taking the profits from the oil back to the west. There was no uprising from the west then about dictatorships just like there is none in Rwanda about dictatorship. Because if you dance to the tune of the west then dictatorships aren't a problem. They're preferred. Of course there is the alternative reality to this. Yes the west has a long history of colonisation and imperalisation. Literally our whole history. But suddenly our leaders gained a conscious over the last 100 years and everything they do is for peace. We just deeply care about inequality, corruption, human rights and we are trying to make everywhere safer. But is installing a dictatorship in Rwanda improving the lives of the many? Is giving a monarchy complete control over Iran where they over power the government improving the lives of the many? Is supporting Israel who invade Syria, Egypt, lebannon, gaza, west bank creating peace? Did we create peace invading Iraq? Afghanstain? Did we create peace when we colonised South Africa? Is the US intervention in Yemen backed by Saudi Arabia cresting peace? So why do we trust the west now to do the right thing? I know this may come across anti western but I'm not. I'm a pacifist and I'm opposed to conflicts where possible. North Korea, Russia, China etc.. have all done many bad things too as well as many countries in Africa and Middle East. But I'm not going to stand here and pretend that the west are the arch angels of peace because that's not the case at all and our history shows it. Our motivations aren't always "human rights" and in many cases we have ulterior motives.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 11:17:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 11:17:46 GMT
Well fair enough you have got behind a one state solution as the way forward. Personally I don't have a problem with that and it would be great if it could happen. However there appears to be no-one looking to make this happen whereas there are a number of players looking to bring about a two state solution. I may be being unduly unrealistic about a two state solution but a one state solution appears even less likely at the moment. There are some parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland but there are some fundamental differences that make your analogy a bit flakey. The Protestants and the Catholics did put down their arms but the solution was not a single state. Northern Ireland is not an independent state - it is part of the UK. Also built into the political solution is the possibility of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland if a majority so wish. And at some point that will happen. The solution in the case of Northern Ireland isn't a one state solution, it is a two state solution - the two states being the UK and Ireland. And at no point in the conflict have the two states denied the other the right to exist or engaged in military/terrorist activity to bring this about. I think you are pushing the analogy way too far. I am not wedded to a One State Solution, any solution even an interim one most likely would be better than the current situation. Politicians including from UK mouth Platitudes about a Two State Solution but in reality while Israel holds the whip hand it has no intention or interest in reaching a solution and certainly not on the 1967 Borders with a right of return for Palestinians. The last serious attempt at a solution was Clinton's failed Camp David talks with Barak and Arafat 24 years ago. A solution could only be imposed on Israel through a strong US President by coercion and I don't see any of those on the Horizon Of course the Northern Ireland situation doesn't exactly mirror Israel/Palestine but there are more parallels than you give credit for. The main difference was that both combatants wanted to reach a settlement but it required an honest Broker, Clinton again, or more especially his Envoy George Mitchell to plot a course. The beauty of the GFA is its ambiguity it can and does mean different things to different people, but the solution is very much a One Statelet Solution with people coexisting. At the 2021 NI Census 32% considered themselves British 29% Irish 20% Northern Irish and the remainder a combination or none of the above. The Single biggest Political Party Sinn Fein hold the Office of First Minister in NI it also has 7 MPs elected to Westminster but they refuse to take their seats. Sinn Fein and its leaders are happy to meet UK Politicians in Belfast, London or Dublin it is the ambiguity which allows the accord to continue. Brexit and specifically the Protocol/Windsor Framework disturbed that ambiguity because Unionists were confronted with a different reality than which they wanted to believe. I also dispute the second part of your final paragraph. ROI needed to hold a Referendum to alter its Constitution to recognise the Statelet of NI to ratify GFA as it had never done so before. In the 1970s two Irish Government Ministers went on Trial for smuggling Arms and Ammunition from Europe to the IRA in NI. One Haughey went on to become Prime Minister. They were acquitted by a Jury who found they were acting on behalf of the Irish Government. I consider that to be engaging in Military Action. In terms of your analogy there are two distinct aspects of the solution: 1 The representatives of the two factions agreed to put down their arms and pursue a political solution. That is exactly what is required in Isreal but neither the Isreali government nor Hamas are anywhere near taking that step. That is a prerequisite for either a one state our two state solution. 2 The practical political arrangement to resolve the NI situation was not a one state solution. It was the creation of a devolved assembly (statelet in your terms) operating in the context of an overarching state (currently the UK, potentially Ireland at some point in the future). Northern Ireland has not resolved it's issues by creating a harmonious autonomous state - the practical political solution involves it's incorporation in an overarching state that assists in the maintenance of the peace. This political solution simply isn't an option for Israel/Palestine - there is no overarching state for a unified statelet to find a home. A long term solution has to be supported by the majority in both the Isreali community and the Palestinian community and my understanding (which may be wrong) is that the majority want to live in their own autonomous state and that is what the moderates in both communities have been arguing for years and of late is being supported by the West and the likes of Saudi Arabia and others in the area. Where is the support for a one state solution? Who is backing this, both within the Isreali and Palestinian communities and in the International community? I'm not against this as a solution I just don't see anything happening on the ground to make it happen whereas there are plenty of influential players working towards a two state solution. I admit my support for a two state solution might be overly optimistic but as things stand it looks to me a damn sight more realistic than a one state solution.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 11:32:04 GMT
Post by gawa on Apr 16, 2024 11:32:04 GMT
I'm not trying to whitewash Irans recent history with women at all, I've said numerous times that I'm not implying they're a beacon of democracy. I'm simply saying they're no worse than many other countries in the region and I stand by that. What caused Iran to be more westernised? Well that was the 1953 coup led by the US and British military. And what predated that? The prime minister wanting to audit the British run Iranian Oil to ensure they were paying the proper royalties and limit their control on Iranian oil - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tatIf we were to flip things round a bit. It would be like Iranians controlling some of our public services. We vote to nationalise then. We then get invaded by Iran and Iraq who place a head of state who allies with them and then introduces sharia law. Something nationalists in the uk fear. And then so many years on we get control back of our country and remove sharia law. Then a few decades on you have people fighting to reapply parts of that sharia law. And the middle east and muslim countries then reporting biasly how the whole population wants to go back to sharia law when it's likely just a minority. Again. Not saying Iran is a beacon of human rights but its important context which relates to why we are where we are today. And going back to the western backed Shah royal family who were kept in power and controlled by the west. One of the descendants of the family has been living in America and was supported by the CIA under the Regan administration. The crown Prince of Iran told associated press in 2017, while living in America, "My focus right now is on liberating Iran, and I will find any means that I can, without compromising the national interests and independence, with anyone who is willing to give us a hand, whether it is the U.S. or the Saudis or the Israelis or whomever it is." At the end of the day the way I look at things is. Russia uses nukes, China uses nukes, west uses nukes. Russia uses propoganda, China uses propoganda, of course the west use propoganda. It would be absurd for us to use the same weapons as other super powers but not use propoganda ourselves. Of course we do. And in my opinion Iran is an example of that. We get drip fed stuff in our media which implies it was this land of the free western country because we see a few people walking down a street wearing denim. And we look no further. We hear a few protests over a hijab and we look no further. We don't get told about a monarchy running the country after doing a western backed coup. We don't get told about the elitism and corruption during their reign. We don't get told about how the coup started due to Iran wanting to get British hands over their oil. It's much more complex than our media makes out. There is no right or wrong in these arguments either. I know I'm only scratching the surface with my own research. But all of the above and the stuff I'm saying is easily available on Wikipedia. It's not random conspiracies. And it's important context which we never get told about in the uk. And when I read all this context and then look at what we get told in uk media. I can't help but feel that we are purposely only exposed to certain elements of Irans recent and historical past and thst sub consciously influences our views. But when you read in more depth you soon see things are much more complex. I'm sorry but there really isn't anything good to say about the Iranian regime and their treatment of women is appalling. There is a growing unrest about the regime among young people and given time I'm sure the it will collapse. And I am in no way advocating a return to the equivalent of the puppet regime under the Shah - it has to be a government of the Iranian people by the Iranian people. I'm also sure the majority ordinary Iranians are lovely people but if you think the Iranian regime isn't that bad you really aren't reading the room. Incidentally I know a couple who recently visited Iran who have travelled extensively in that area. Their conclusion was it is a beautiful country with an appallingly repressive regime and although they enjoyed the visit they were glad to get out - particularly as a woman. That might be anecdotal evidence but it certainly isn't western propaganda. Well should we not also be invading Israel and Saudi Arabia for similar reasons? Israel has been oppressing Palestine women for decades. Orthodox Jewish women have to deal with morality police there. You can't even get a divorce in Israel unless your husband allows it. And then invading Syria, Egypt, Lebannon, Gaza, West Bank. Is this a peaceful country? Have you followed the protests about corruption in Israel prior to October 7th? The mass protests in the street over the corruption of the government and how the same government implemented laws allowing them to select the jurors who are going to judge them on their own corruption? Or what about the well documented humans rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and how those women are treated? What about the Abaya Inside Out protests there over the burqa? Women couldn't even drive in Saudi Arabia until 2017. Or going back to Israel again and I say about them needing their husband to allow them to get divorced and how those go through rabbinic courts. And the Israeli government now want to give more power to rabbinic courts where there isn't even a single female judge amongst them. And what about all the women protesting against that? It's not as widely reported as the hijab protests is it? www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/13/patriarchal-biased-israeli-women-fear-loss-rights-rabbinic-courts-legal-overhaulSo we have Israel oppressing women, especially palestine women which is much worse than any Iranian woman experiences. But here we are today "we need to go after the cruel Iranian regime" and we intend to do that with our allies Saudi Arabia and Israel... who... seem to also have many human rights issues against women. Which women in those countries have protested against in recent years. And how do we respond to these regimes? We back Saudi Arabia in Yemen. We back Israel in Gaza and elsewhere. Is that bringing peace anywhere it isn't. Your anecdotal experiences of Iran mean little to me. I'm not trying to defend Iran as a beacon of human rights as I've said many times. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the west and how it's not about human rights because there are many countries we support who also have had protests in recent years over womens rights but you're clearly not bothered about those countries because our media doesn't try to provoke the same anger or emotional responses. Instead we get told "wow women in saudi arabia can now drive. And look they have golf there now too and some women play it. Isn't it such a revolution" or "Oh but Israel is the victim as they're one of the only jewish states and everyone wants to wipe them off the planet. They're just defending themselves". What about the very few shia muslim countries left? Does the same reasoning not apply there? Can we not look at recent conflicts and make the shia's victims? Oh look at Yemen, oh look at iraq, oh look at afghanastan - look at how the shias have been oppressed in recent history. They're threatened because everyone is islamaphobic towards them. They're a democracy who has the right to defend itself. Everyone else wants to get rid of their existance. It doesn't scratch though does it? It doesn't have the same impact or emotional pull as it does when you say it for Israel. And that's years of propoganda programming us to think certain ways about certain regimes based of the journalism we get provided. And once again. I'm not trying to suggest or imply Iran is this amazing democratic country with great human rights. I'm merely pointing out the hyprocrisy and if it was all about womens rights then we wouldn't be sending Saudi Arabia or Israel a fuck ton of arms every month. It's about control and it always has been about control. Soon we will hear about how China is this massive threat again too. But then I look at this: China - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_ChinaUSA - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_StatesSince 1979 China has been involved in 0 wars. The USA has been involved in 24. And we are the peace keepers? Come on.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 16, 2024 11:40:50 GMT
I'm not here trying to say or suggest that Iran is a beacon of middle east democracy. I don't believe they're the dangerous perpetrator they're made out to be though. I'm sure many of us on here have seen the videos of Iran in the 1970s and how it used to be when it was more westernised for a period in history. Well if you want to talk about women's rights. Heres a comparison for education: Pre 1979 v Post 1979 42.33% Literacy (15–24) 97.70% 24.42% Literacy (>15) 79.23% 48,845 Students[88] 2,191,409 122,753 Graduates[89] 5,023,992 2.4% Graduates (%) 18.4% 19.7 Age at 1st marriage 23.4 And to expand further on that. Read up on the Iranian revolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). Women were hugely involved and pioneers in the Iranian revolution and their rights now are much better than they were before, and certainly much better than countries such as Saudi Arabia. Going back to your article. Mate it's just some American saying that a former Egyptian agent who is allegedly this Al qaeda leader is living in Iran. ISIS also occupy parts of Iran, I'm sure Al Qaeda may do too. Its a huge country bigger than all European countries aside from Russia. Over 3x the size of France. They did arrest this leader and have him in prison in the 2000s before doing a prisoner swap deal. Iran has fought in 4 wars against Al Qaeda and 3 against Isis in recent decades. Its just daft to suggest they're allies. All links between Iran and Al Qaeda are "alleged". Only a couple of years ago America were supporting the taliban and Al qaeda in a war: www.france24.com/en/20200310-taliban-fought-is-with-limited-us-military-support-us-general-revealswww.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/07/taliban-advances-as-u-s-completes-withdrawal.phpIn terms of the hijab it's a complicated history. Again I don't defend Irans position on many things including the hijab but they're much more complex topics than portrayed. I'm not a middle east foreign affairs expert or a historian so understandably I may be incorrect. But compared to all of the middle east, I don't personally see Iran as the big scary wolf they're made out as. I don't think there's a country in the world where the difference between government and its people is so clear. Persian culture is warm and welcoming, there is not that culture of sexism (or misogyny) you sometime get in countries of the region, they are highly educated and well read and not anti-"west" at all in the main. It's a tragedy that the Islamic Republic government are oppressing it's people (particularly women) when they have so much to offer to the world........ That's why I've always made a distinction between Islam and the followers of Islam( or a religion and followers of the religion). I think Muslims are as much ( or moreso) " victims " of the religion as anyone. Simply , the Persians looked happier to me before the Revolution than afterwards. I'm all for freedom of belief and thought ( although religion doesn't allow that privilege) as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. In my opinion Islam does so or has the potential to do so. I would not mind if there was any truth in the origins of the religion...I can't see it myself that " Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the greatest and last prophet.. An ideology that has got out of hand( the same could be said of Christianity) IMO
|
|