|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 11:47:34 GMT
via mobile
lordb likes this
Post by gawa on Apr 16, 2024 11:47:34 GMT
Enjoying the different discussions and debates in this thread. Certainly a very divisive subject.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 16, 2024 11:48:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 12:10:00 GMT
At over 6 hours in length, I'm going to have do this in stages! 😁
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 12:26:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 16, 2024 12:26:48 GMT
At over 6 hours in length, I'm going to have do this in stages! 😁 I've only done part one Paul. His book based on it is available on Audible!
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 16, 2024 12:50:49 GMT
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. 1. This is exactly the point I have been repeating. In NI both sides recognised it couldn't win Militarily and a mediator was found to work out a Peace Deal. In Israel/Palestine that equality doesn't exist so in order to alter the status quo an equitable solution must be imposed by external coercion primarily from the US but the West generally. I don't much care if that a One or Two State Solution or most likely an interim one as is NI. No amount of UN Resolutions or ICJ Censure is going to alter Israel's actions 2. From its creation in 1921 up to 1972 NI was a devolved Apartheid Statelet, this was the problem. It became devolved again in 1999 after the GFA. GFA was signed by the Political Parties in NI the British Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. UK Britain is not the overarching Country as what's much misunderstood is at the same time a British - Irish Agreement was signed making each responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the GFA through various East/West North/South Bodies. Both US and EU are Guarantors of GFA which is why Brexit caused such a stink. Your 2nd last paragraph shows a clear misunderstanding of the GFA and British/Irish Dual Agreements which were signed You seem hung up on whether it's a One or Two State Solution, I don't much care. I expect since October 7 and events since in Gaza opinions of Israelis and Palestinians have polarised but I expect given a choice most would welcome a peaceful existence under whatever arrangements were deemed best. The ideologies of Hamas or Zionists won't change but they will garner much less popular support in a peaceful setting
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 13:07:05 GMT
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Apr 16, 2024 13:07:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 16, 2024 14:34:13 GMT
Enjoying the different discussions and debates in this thread. Certainly a very divisive subject. Its simple if you're Israel. Wipe out Palestine then start on Lebanon. Grab as much land as possible and sidetrack everyone else with all the other related shit that's appeared in this thread. (German Nazi police).
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 15:26:15 GMT
Enjoying the different discussions and debates in this thread. Certainly a very divisive subject. But (in the main) respectful and well considered ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 15:42:20 GMT
Israeli fascism and terrorism ...
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 16:27:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 16:27:55 GMT
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. 1. This is exactly the point I have been repeating. In NI both sides recognised it couldn't win Militarily and a mediator was found to work out a Peace Deal. In Israel/Palestine that equality doesn't exist so in order to alter the status quo an equitable solution must be imposed by external coercion primarily from the US but the West generally. I don't much care if that a One or Two State Solution or most likely an interim one as is NI. No amount of UN Resolutions or ICJ Censure is going to alter Israel's actions 2. From its creation in 1921 up to 1972 NI was a devolved Apartheid Statelet, this was the problem. It became devolved again in 1999 after the GFA. GFA was signed by the Political Parties in NI the British Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. UK Britain is not the overarching Country as what's much misunderstood is at the same time a British - Irish Agreement was signed making each responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the GFA through various East/West North/South Bodies. Both US and EU are Guarantors of GFA which is why Brexit caused such a stink. Your 2nd last paragraph shows a clear misunderstanding of the GFA and British/Irish Dual Agreements which were signed You seem hung up on whether it's a One or Two State Solution, I don't much care. I expect since October 7 and events since in Gaza opinions of Israelis and Palestinians have polarised but I expect given a choice most would welcome a peaceful existence under whatever arrangements were deemed best. The ideologies of Hamas or Zionists won't change but they will garner much less popular support in a peaceful setting So you are saying the West and the US in particular should coerce Israel into a peaceful solution? How the hell does that work? Do NATO invade Isreal and imprison the government? Even if it was practically possible it's a dreadful idea - Western intervention in a countries affairs ends up with a government that has no credibility. For something to work long term it has to come from within - the Isreali and Palestinian people have to find representatives who want a peaceful solution - neither have it with the current government Isreali government or Hamas. The US and the EU may well have had a role in supporting the GFA but the fact remains NI is not an independent state - the nation state it is part of is the UK. What exactly would the equivalent political arrangement be for Israel? What state would Isreal be part of? Yes it could be an independent state but then it is not a politically equivalent solution to the GFA. Your analogy doesn't hold up. The situation is fundamentally different in terms of what a political solution might look like. In terms of the need for the two parties involved in the conflict to lay down their arms and find a political solution there is indeed a parallel between Israel and NI but neither party is currently on that page. In terms of an actual political solution the two situations are completely different. I'm not questioning your motivation but I am questioning whether you really have thought this through. To me it just seems very warm and fuzzy and unless I'm missing something I can't see any of the key players doing anything along the lines of an NI style solution whereas there is definitely things going on in terms of bringing about a two state solution.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 16:56:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 16:56:26 GMT
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. This site appears to have a pretty objective take on the position of women in countries around the world - giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/For reference Saudi Arabia are ranked 67 out of 177, Isreal 80 out of 177 and Iran 140/177. The UK 26th and the US 37th.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Apr 16, 2024 17:57:46 GMT
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. This site appears to have a pretty objective take on the position of women in countries around the world - giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/For reference Saudi Arabia are ranked 67 out of 177, Isreal 80 out of 177 and Iran 140/177. The UK 26th and the US 37th. I wonder how a university in Tehran would rank them. Do you agree that women have more rights in Saudi Arabia than Israel? Not even sure why we are hyper focused on women's rights but here we are. IRAN IS THE MOST EVIL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. As were every single country the west went to war with before them... At least in your resource we can see military action has been a success with all the countries the US invades.... ranked bottom. Just imagine how evil you think Iran are if they invaded all their neighbours, had the largest open air prison and just went on a relentless killing spree of 40k women and children while blocking aid, destroying hospitals and destroying infrastructure. Crazy how the media works isn't it. I guess at least those people were allowed to choose whether they wore a hijab or not before inevitabley dying while they operated as a human shield for a terrorist. And the reason I'm bringing the above into it is because I've consistently said I'm not suggesting Iran is a beacon of democracy, just simply saying they're not the most evil regime in the middle east as implied. But you're hyper fixation on the hijab and women's rights to paint them as the worst regime is obvious. So I look forward to the mental gymnastics when you try to justify Israel and Saudi Arabias military action in the middle east where they've been attacking (not defending) other regimes and how this makes them so much more peaceful than Iran.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 18:14:48 GMT
via mobile
gawa likes this
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 18:14:48 GMT
This site appears to have a pretty objective take on the position of women in countries around the world - giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/For reference Saudi Arabia are ranked 67 out of 177, Isreal 80 out of 177 and Iran 140/177. The UK 26th and the US 37th. I wonder how a university in Tehran would rank them. Do you agree that women have more rights in Saudi Arabia than Israel? Not even sure why we are hyper focused on women's rights but here we are. IRAN IS THE MOST EVIL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. As were every single country the west went to war with before them... At least in your resource we can see military action has been a success with all the countries the US invades.... ranked bottom. Just imagine how evil you think Iran are if they invaded all their neighbours, had the largest open air prison and just went on a relentless killing spree of 40k women and children while blocking aid, destroying hospitals and destroying infrastructure. Crazy how the media works isn't it. I guess at least those people were allowed to choose whether they wore a hijab or not before inevitabley dying while they operated as a human shield for a terrorist. And the reason I'm bringing the above into it is because I've consistently said I'm not suggesting Iran is a beacon of democracy, just simply saying they're not the most evil regime in the middle east as implied. But you're hyper fixation on the hijab and women's rights to paint them as the worst regime is obvious. So I look forward to the mental gymnastics when you try to justify Israel and Saudi Arabias military action in the middle east where they've been attacking (not defending) other regimes and how this makes them so much more peaceful than Iran. Indeed gawa The gentleman speaking is a respected Jewish historian ... Israel is a much bigger threat to Iran, than Iran is to Israel ...
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 16, 2024 19:28:40 GMT
1. This is exactly the point I have been repeating. In NI both sides recognised it couldn't win Militarily and a mediator was found to work out a Peace Deal. In Israel/Palestine that equality doesn't exist so in order to alter the status quo an equitable solution must be imposed by external coercion primarily from the US but the West generally. I don't much care if that a One or Two State Solution or most likely an interim one as is NI. No amount of UN Resolutions or ICJ Censure is going to alter Israel's actions 2. From its creation in 1921 up to 1972 NI was a devolved Apartheid Statelet, this was the problem. It became devolved again in 1999 after the GFA. GFA was signed by the Political Parties in NI the British Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. UK Britain is not the overarching Country as what's much misunderstood is at the same time a British - Irish Agreement was signed making each responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the GFA through various East/West North/South Bodies. Both US and EU are Guarantors of GFA which is why Brexit caused such a stink. Your 2nd last paragraph shows a clear misunderstanding of the GFA and British/Irish Dual Agreements which were signed You seem hung up on whether it's a One or Two State Solution, I don't much care. I expect since October 7 and events since in Gaza opinions of Israelis and Palestinians have polarised but I expect given a choice most would welcome a peaceful existence under whatever arrangements were deemed best. The ideologies of Hamas or Zionists won't change but they will garner much less popular support in a peaceful setting 1. So you are saying the West and the US in particular should coerce Israel into a peaceful solution? How the hell does that work? Do NATO invade Isreal and imprison the government? Even if it was practically possible it's a dreadful idea - Western intervention in a countries affairs ends up with a government that has no credibility. For something to work long term it has to come from within - the Isreali and Palestinian people have to find representatives who want a peaceful solution - neither have it with the current government Isreali government or Hamas. 2. The US and the EU may well have had a role in supporting the GFA but the fact remains NI is not an independent state - the nation state it is part of is the UK. 3. What exactly would the equivalent political arrangement be for Israel? What state would Isreal be part of? Yes it could be an independent state but then it is not a politically equivalent solution to the GFA. Your analogy doesn't hold up. The situation is fundamentally different in terms of what a political solution might look like. 4. In terms of the need for the two parties involved in the conflict to lay down their arms and find a political solution there is indeed a parallel between Israel and NI but neither party is currently on that page. In terms of an actual political solution the two situations are completely different. 5. I'm not questioning your motivation but I am questioning whether you really have thought this through. To me it just seems very warm and fuzzy and unless I'm missing something I can't see any of the key players doing anything along the lines of an NI style solution whereas there is definitely things going on in terms of bringing about a two state solution. 1. You have a tendency to reply to a post, ask a question, then answer your own question with an inevitable outcome Of course I'm not advocating a Military Intervention. Israel is an Apartheid State with an expansionist ideology it should be treated as a Pariah like other similar States now and before e.g. Russia and South Africa. There is no other moral equivalent position that the West should take. Israel must be forced to the negotiating table by withdrawing Financial Support with Sanctions on its Government and Individuals "If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" - Theodore Roosevelt Not to be confused with "Grab them by the Pussy" - Donald Trump 2. The US and EU have an intrinsic role in GFA as was entirely evident in Brexit Withdrawal negotiations. Interestingly you ignore entirely the role of ROI in which the British/Irish Agreement was fundamental to Nationalist acceptance of ceasefire and decommissioning of weapons The GFA states that presently NI remains part of UK but if a simple majority decide it should unite with ROI then that will happen If ROI were peripheral why did it require a Referendum in ROI to change its Constitution a) to abandon it Constitutional claim over NI and b) accept NI into a United Ireland if a simple majority agree. I seriously urge you to read the attached to understand what GFA says but as importantly the ongoing day to day roles of British and Irish Governments obligations under these Internationally Registered Agreements www.cambridge.org/core/books/law-and-practice-of-the-irelandnorthern-ireland-protocol/1998-agreement/87D36C6B57F50121405A14EFF2E933773. You currently have 3 categories of Palestinians a) those that live in Gaza under blockade in an open Prison now turned to rubble b) those that live in West Bank under Occupation under Apartheid Rules and c) Palestinians that live in East Jerusalem some with Israeli Citizenship but most with Residency only but all under Apartheid Rules. The vast Majority of Palestinians are Sunni Muslims so Saudi Arabia are the ideal candidates to represent Palestinians, US are the obvious to represent Israel others that may have an input could be UN Egypt Qatar UK France. Those representing Israel will be whoever they Elect and Palestinians must hold supervised Elections to Represent them A first step must be to address the status of a, b, and c to equa rights to Israeli Citizens WHEREVER they reside. The question whether Israelis and Palestinians reside in One or Two States is a detail as far as I'm concerned and the preference would become apparent soon after negotiations begin. If it's the latter there must be a free and safe corridor between Gaza and West Bank and the Holy Temples of both in Jerusalem must be respected. Restoration to the 1967 Borders are another difficult topic as well as the right of return of the Palestinian Diaspora Of course it will be a long process but nothing can move forward until Israel is forced to the negotiating table, in fact things will get worse 4. See 3. above 5. I see no evidence of any serious attempt to bring about any solution be it One or Two. I'll be happy to be proved wrong
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Apr 16, 2024 19:46:08 GMT
I don’t know if anyone has posted the interview, but it’s well worth a look at Kay Burley with David Cameron talking about the Iran retaliation. You can watch in action as he ties himself in knots and fair play to Kay Burley to push him (slightly)
My biggest takeaway from it is the fact he has the brass neck to now talk about proportionality!
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Apr 16, 2024 20:30:04 GMT
Hamas base between the slide and the swings?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 21:44:00 GMT
Hamas base between the slide and the swings? Interesting that they cam seemingly make precision strikes on international consulates in other countries entirely but when it comes to their own back yard, for some reason, everything mysteriously goes awry ...
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 22:05:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by PotteringThrough on Apr 16, 2024 22:05:18 GMT
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 Religion appears to impose massive constraints on people and how they live their life when the reality is they all pretty much say the same thing about treating others with respect e.g.: Everyone's God-given human dignity must be respected, regardless of his or her faith, race, ethnic origin, gender, or social status (ref. Qur'an, 17:70). Simon the Just taught: "The world rests upon three things: Torah, service to God, and showing loving-kindness (chesed)". “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12 All members of the Sikh community are seen as equal. All individuals, regardless of gender, race, disability, class or wealth, should be treated with respect and dignity. The zealots and imbeciles latch onto something insignificant and push that as their main message which really drives division and destructive ideologies.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 17, 2024 9:04:46 GMT
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 17, 2024 9:04:46 GMT
1. So you are saying the West and the US in particular should coerce Israel into a peaceful solution? How the hell does that work? Do NATO invade Isreal and imprison the government? Even if it was practically possible it's a dreadful idea - Western intervention in a countries affairs ends up with a government that has no credibility. For something to work long term it has to come from within - the Isreali and Palestinian people have to find representatives who want a peaceful solution - neither have it with the current government Isreali government or Hamas. 2. The US and the EU may well have had a role in supporting the GFA but the fact remains NI is not an independent state - the nation state it is part of is the UK. 3. What exactly would the equivalent political arrangement be for Israel? What state would Isreal be part of? Yes it could be an independent state but then it is not a politically equivalent solution to the GFA. Your analogy doesn't hold up. The situation is fundamentally different in terms of what a political solution might look like. 4. In terms of the need for the two parties involved in the conflict to lay down their arms and find a political solution there is indeed a parallel between Israel and NI but neither party is currently on that page. In terms of an actual political solution the two situations are completely different. 5. I'm not questioning your motivation but I am questioning whether you really have thought this through. To me it just seems very warm and fuzzy and unless I'm missing something I can't see any of the key players doing anything along the lines of an NI style solution whereas there is definitely things going on in terms of bringing about a two state solution. 1. You have a tendency to reply to a post, ask a question, then answer your own question with an inevitable outcome Of course I'm not advocating a Military Intervention. Israel is an Apartheid State with an expansionist ideology it should be treated as a Pariah like other similar States now and before e.g. Russia and South Africa. There is no other moral equivalent position that the West should take. Israel must be forced to the negotiating table by withdrawing Financial Support with Sanctions on its Government and Individuals "If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" - Theodore Roosevelt Not to be confused with "Grab them by the Pussy" - Donald Trump 2. The US and EU have an intrinsic role in GFA as was entirely evident in Brexit Withdrawal negotiations. Interestingly you ignore entirely the role of ROI in which the British/Irish Agreement was fundamental to Nationalist acceptance of ceasefire and decommissioning of weapons The GFA states that presently NI remains part of UK but if a simple majority decide it should unite with ROI then that will happen If ROI were peripheral why did it require a Referendum in ROI to change its Constitution a) to abandon it Constitutional claim over NI and b) accept NI into a United Ireland if a simple majority agree. I seriously urge you to read the attached to understand what GFA says but as importantly the ongoing day to day roles of British and Irish Governments obligations under these Internationally Registered Agreements www.cambridge.org/core/books/law-and-practice-of-the-irelandnorthern-ireland-protocol/1998-agreement/87D36C6B57F50121405A14EFF2E933773. You currently have 3 categories of Palestinians a) those that live in Gaza under blockade in an open Prison now turned to rubble b) those that live in West Bank under Occupation under Apartheid Rules and c) Palestinians that live in East Jerusalem some with Israeli Citizenship but most with Residency only but all under Apartheid Rules. The vast Majority of Palestinians are Sunni Muslims so Saudi Arabia are the ideal candidates to represent Palestinians, US are the obvious to represent Israel others that may have an input could be UN Egypt Qatar UK France. Those representing Israel will be whoever they Elect and Palestinians must hold supervised Elections to Represent them A first step must be to address the status of a, b, and c to equa rights to Israeli Citizens WHEREVER they reside. The question whether Israelis and Palestinians reside in One or Two States is a detail as far as I'm concerned and the preference would become apparent soon after negotiations begin. If it's the latter there must be a free and safe corridor between Gaza and West Bank and the Holy Temples of both in Jerusalem must be respected. Restoration to the 1967 Borders are another difficult topic as well as the right of return of the Palestinian Diaspora Of course it will be a long process but nothing can move forward until Israel is forced to the negotiating table, in fact things will get worse 4. See 3. above 5. I see no evidence of any serious attempt to bring about any solution be it One or Two. I'll be happy to be proved wrong I understand how the GFA works and that the US, EU and ROI all have a role in supporting it. However the fact remains that the solution to the NI situation is not a one state solution with the protagonists living in harmony in an autonomous internationally recognised independent state. NI is not a state. It is a "statelet" with devolved power subsumed in the governance of a bigger state - currently the UK and possibly ROI in the future depending on the will of the people of NI. An equivalent political solution is not possible for Israel/Palestine. There is no overarching state in which the "statelet" of Israel/Palestine can reside. The solution is either a single independent state or two independent states. That is not the same political solution as the one for NI. Your analogy breaks down when it comes to the fundamentals of the solution. You are right in that the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt have a role to play with the US and UK acting as honest brokers for Israelis and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt doing the same for the Palestinians. The thing is this is already happening: www.timesofisrael.com/saudis-want-steps-toward-two-state-solution-for-normalization-blinken-says/:"US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that Saudi Arabia has conveyed to the United States that advancing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a critical component of a potential normalization deal that Washington is brokering between Riyadh and Jerusalem." In an interview on the Pod Save the World podcast, Blinken reiterated the Biden administration’s position that efforts to expand the Abraham Accords are not a substitute for Israeli-Palestinian peace. “In our judgement… that needs to involve a two-state solution,” he said. A one or two state solution isn't some minor detail - it is a fundamental condition of any agreement that the likes of Saudi Arabia and US are prepared to broker. You have either missed out on the coverage of what has been going on behind the scenes or are choosing to ignore it because you have made you mind up that the UK and the US are inherently bad actors and are not seeking a solution to the problem. They are, as are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt - and that solution is a two state solution. If you can find any evidence to support moves to implement a one state/NI style solution please provide it - all I can find is evidence of the major players needed to bring about a solution supporting the two state solution.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 17, 2024 10:01:08 GMT
1. You have a tendency to reply to a post, ask a question, then answer your own question with an inevitable outcome Of course I'm not advocating a Military Intervention. Israel is an Apartheid State with an expansionist ideology it should be treated as a Pariah like other similar States now and before e.g. Russia and South Africa. There is no other moral equivalent position that the West should take. Israel must be forced to the negotiating table by withdrawing Financial Support with Sanctions on its Government and Individuals "If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" - Theodore Roosevelt Not to be confused with "Grab them by the Pussy" - Donald Trump 2. The US and EU have an intrinsic role in GFA as was entirely evident in Brexit Withdrawal negotiations. Interestingly you ignore entirely the role of ROI in which the British/Irish Agreement was fundamental to Nationalist acceptance of ceasefire and decommissioning of weapons The GFA states that presently NI remains part of UK but if a simple majority decide it should unite with ROI then that will happen If ROI were peripheral why did it require a Referendum in ROI to change its Constitution a) to abandon it Constitutional claim over NI and b) accept NI into a United Ireland if a simple majority agree. I seriously urge you to read the attached to understand what GFA says but as importantly the ongoing day to day roles of British and Irish Governments obligations under these Internationally Registered Agreements www.cambridge.org/core/books/law-and-practice-of-the-irelandnorthern-ireland-protocol/1998-agreement/87D36C6B57F50121405A14EFF2E933773. You currently have 3 categories of Palestinians a) those that live in Gaza under blockade in an open Prison now turned to rubble b) those that live in West Bank under Occupation under Apartheid Rules and c) Palestinians that live in East Jerusalem some with Israeli Citizenship but most with Residency only but all under Apartheid Rules. The vast Majority of Palestinians are Sunni Muslims so Saudi Arabia are the ideal candidates to represent Palestinians, US are the obvious to represent Israel others that may have an input could be UN Egypt Qatar UK France. Those representing Israel will be whoever they Elect and Palestinians must hold supervised Elections to Represent them A first step must be to address the status of a, b, and c to equa rights to Israeli Citizens WHEREVER they reside. The question whether Israelis and Palestinians reside in One or Two States is a detail as far as I'm concerned and the preference would become apparent soon after negotiations begin. If it's the latter there must be a free and safe corridor between Gaza and West Bank and the Holy Temples of both in Jerusalem must be respected. Restoration to the 1967 Borders are another difficult topic as well as the right of return of the Palestinian Diaspora Of course it will be a long process but nothing can move forward until Israel is forced to the negotiating table, in fact things will get worse 4. See 3. above 5. I see no evidence of any serious attempt to bring about any solution be it One or Two. I'll be happy to be proved wrong I understand how the GFA works and that the US, EU and ROI all have a role in supporting it. However the fact remains that the solution to the NI situation is not a one state solution with the protagonists living in harmony in an autonomous internationally recognised independent state. NI is not a state. It is a "statelet" with devolved power subsumed in the governance of a bigger state - currently the UK and possibly ROI in the future depending on the will of the people of NI. An equivalent political solution is not possible for Israel/Palestine. There is no overarching state in which the "statelet" of Israel/Palestine can reside. The solution is either a single independent state or two independent states. That is not the same political solution as the one for NI. Your analogy breaks down when it comes to the fundamentals of the solution. You are right in that the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt have a role to play with the US and UK acting as honest brokers for Israelis and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt doing the same for the Palestinians. The thing is this is already happening: www.timesofisrael.com/saudis-want-steps-toward-two-state-solution-for-normalization-blinken-says/:"US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that Saudi Arabia has conveyed to the United States that advancing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a critical component of a potential normalization deal that Washington is brokering between Riyadh and Jerusalem." In an interview on the Pod Save the World podcast, Blinken reiterated the Biden administration’s position that efforts to expand the Abraham Accords are not a substitute for Israeli-Palestinian peace. “In our judgement… that needs to involve a two-state solution,” he said. A one or two state solution isn't some minor detail - it is a fundamental condition of any agreement that the likes of Saudi Arabia and US are prepared to broker. You have either missed out on the coverage of what has been going on behind the scenes or are choosing to ignore it because you have made you mind up that the UK and the US are inherently bad actors and are not seeking a solution to the problem. They are, as are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt - and that solution is a two state solution. If you can find any evidence to support moves to implement a one state/NI style solution please provide it - all I can find is evidence of the major players needed to bring about a solution supporting the two state solution. With respect, the fundamental point that you are missing, is that Israel isn't going to negotiate in good faith, until it has been brought to it's knees, in the same way that South Africa was in the 80's. It has to be made aware, through strong political and economic sanctions, that the world does not and will not accept apartheid of the Palestinan people. Until the point of a relatively more level playing field is reached, any negotiations will be heavily skewed in Israels favour and ultimately, they will lead nowhere. And it is at THIS point that we can then start considering practical ways to make a solution work, anything prior to that, will be just empty rhetoric on the part of Western leaders pretending that they genuinely want to achieve a resolution. Furthermore, a one or two state solution aren't the only options. It won't be until Israel's power has been reduced and we can see how the land lies at that point, that we will then be able to enter into more informed negotiations. As it stands, Israel isn't going to accept a two state solution under any circumstances because it will regard the Palestinian state as nothing more than a missile state and will see it as a permanent existential threat to it's security. Hence we may wish to consider a THREE state solution, where Egypt occupies Gaza and Jordan occupies the West Bank. All three states would be internationally recognised (possibly East and West Palestine?), Israel would no longer be an occupying force but almost certainly, the illegal Israeli settlers will have to leave the West Bank. Now I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about the proposal I've outlined, it is of course infinitely complex but rather I raise it, to demonstrate how futile it is to discuss potential solutions until Israel's hand in negotiations has been significantly reduced. As it stands, they would never agree to the illegal settlers being forced to upsticks, in order to reach a resolution. However they might, if they've been treated by the rest of the world as a pariah state for a few years, suffering crippling sanctions that the West has imposed upon them. Until we see a fundamental shift in US and UK foreign policy towards Israel, we will never, ever see peace in Palestine.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 17, 2024 10:08:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by wagsastokie on Apr 17, 2024 10:08:11 GMT
I don’t know if anyone has posted the interview, but it’s well worth a look at Kay Burley with David Cameron talking about the Iran retaliation. You can watch in action as he ties himself in knots and fair play to Kay Burley to push him (slightly) My biggest takeaway from it is the fact he has the brass neck to now talk about proportionality! Nowt wrong with man of the people Dave He’s one of the hero’s who helped liberate this country from the yoke of European imperialism
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Apr 17, 2024 10:25:32 GMT
I don’t know if anyone has posted the interview, but it’s well worth a look at Kay Burley with David Cameron talking about the Iran retaliation. You can watch in action as he ties himself in knots and fair play to Kay Burley to push him (slightly) My biggest takeaway from it is the fact he has the brass neck to now talk about proportionality! Nowt wrong with man of the people Dave He’s one of the hero’s who helped liberate this country from the yoke of European imperialism He’s a good magician too, pretty good disappearing act right after that referendum 😉
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 17, 2024 11:25:32 GMT
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 17, 2024 11:25:32 GMT
I understand how the GFA works and that the US, EU and ROI all have a role in supporting it. However the fact remains that the solution to the NI situation is not a one state solution with the protagonists living in harmony in an autonomous internationally recognised independent state. NI is not a state. It is a "statelet" with devolved power subsumed in the governance of a bigger state - currently the UK and possibly ROI in the future depending on the will of the people of NI. An equivalent political solution is not possible for Israel/Palestine. There is no overarching state in which the "statelet" of Israel/Palestine can reside. The solution is either a single independent state or two independent states. That is not the same political solution as the one for NI. Your analogy breaks down when it comes to the fundamentals of the solution. You are right in that the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt have a role to play with the US and UK acting as honest brokers for Israelis and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt doing the same for the Palestinians. The thing is this is already happening: www.timesofisrael.com/saudis-want-steps-toward-two-state-solution-for-normalization-blinken-says/:"US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that Saudi Arabia has conveyed to the United States that advancing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a critical component of a potential normalization deal that Washington is brokering between Riyadh and Jerusalem." In an interview on the Pod Save the World podcast, Blinken reiterated the Biden administration’s position that efforts to expand the Abraham Accords are not a substitute for Israeli-Palestinian peace. “In our judgement… that needs to involve a two-state solution,” he said. A one or two state solution isn't some minor detail - it is a fundamental condition of any agreement that the likes of Saudi Arabia and US are prepared to broker. You have either missed out on the coverage of what has been going on behind the scenes or are choosing to ignore it because you have made you mind up that the UK and the US are inherently bad actors and are not seeking a solution to the problem. They are, as are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt - and that solution is a two state solution. If you can find any evidence to support moves to implement a one state/NI style solution please provide it - all I can find is evidence of the major players needed to bring about a solution supporting the two state solution. With respect, the fundamental point that you are missing, is that Israel isn't going to negotiate in good faith, until it has been brought to it's knees, in the same way that South Africa was in the 80's. It has to be made aware, through strong political and economic sanctions, that the world does not and will not accept apartheid of the Palestinan people. Until the point of a relatively more level playing field is reached, any negotiations will be heavily skewed in Israels favour and ultimately, they will lead nowhere. And it is at THIS point that we can then start considering practical ways to make a solution work, anything prior to that, will be just empty rhetoric on the part of Western leaders pretending that they genuinely want to achieve a resolution. Furthermore, a one or two state solution aren't the only options. It won't be until Israel's power has been reduced and we can see how the land lies at that point, that we will then be able to enter into more informed negotiations. As it stands, Israel isn't going to accept a two state solution under any circumstances because it will regard the Palestinian state as nothing more than a missile state and will see it as a permanent existential threat to it's security. Hence we may wish to consider a THREE state solution, where Egypt occupies Gaza and Jordan occupies the West Bank. All three states would be internationally recognised (possibly East and West Palestine?), Israel would no longer be an occupying force but almost certainly, the illegal Israeli settlers will have to leave the West Bank. Now I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about the proposal I've outlined, it is of course infinitely complex but rather I raise it, to demonstrate how futile it is to discuss potential solutions until Israel's hand in negotiations has been significantly reduced. As it stands, they would never agree to the illegal settlers being forced to upsticks, in order to reach a resolution. However they might, if they've been treated by the rest of the world as a pariah state for a few years, suffering crippling sanctions that the West has imposed upon them. Until we see a fundamental shift in US and UK foreign policy towards Israel, we will never, ever see peace in Palestine. The Netenyahu government is not going to negotiate a solution under any circumstances. A precondition of any solution is a change of government and that has to be brought about by the people of Israel - it isn't going to be imposed from the outside. I don't have a problem with the West imposing economic sanctions but that isn't of itself going to solve the problem. You are making this very one sided. It isn't only the Israeli government that is a threat to a lasting peace - it is also Hamas and it's supporters. The Israeli government and the West are right to see Hamas and it's supporters (Hezbollah and Iran) as a security threat to Israel because they are a security threat to Israel - they don't recognise Israel as a legitimate state and are actively seeking to have it eradicated. Your position is premised on mistrusting what the West is doing - you do not believe they are acting in good faith to bring about a lasting solution. I believe you are wrong. The West is supporting Israel in terms of it's right to exist but are actively working with the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar to facilitate a lasting solution. And that solution is a two party state. I'm not surprised you don't want to discuss your 3 state solution any further because literally no-one is talking about that as a solution. You have made it up. The problem with your solution is that there is absolutely no sign that the West are going to do a complete about face on Israel and impose devastating sanctions and it's very likely Israel will refuse to be brought to it's knees - if anything it will harden it's stance. You solution is just fanciful - there is no evidence that anyone with any real influence is going to go that way. The two state solution is the one on the table and the West are working towards it's implementation. You can choose to ignore it if you like but that's the only serious proposal on the table.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 17, 2024 12:08:28 GMT
With respect, the fundamental point that you are missing, is that Israel isn't going to negotiate in good faith, until it has been brought to it's knees, in the same way that South Africa was in the 80's. It has to be made aware, through strong political and economic sanctions, that the world does not and will not accept apartheid of the Palestinan people. Until the point of a relatively more level playing field is reached, any negotiations will be heavily skewed in Israels favour and ultimately, they will lead nowhere. And it is at THIS point that we can then start considering practical ways to make a solution work, anything prior to that, will be just empty rhetoric on the part of Western leaders pretending that they genuinely want to achieve a resolution. Furthermore, a one or two state solution aren't the only options. It won't be until Israel's power has been reduced and we can see how the land lies at that point, that we will then be able to enter into more informed negotiations. As it stands, Israel isn't going to accept a two state solution under any circumstances because it will regard the Palestinian state as nothing more than a missile state and will see it as a permanent existential threat to it's security. Hence we may wish to consider a THREE state solution, where Egypt occupies Gaza and Jordan occupies the West Bank. All three states would be internationally recognised (possibly East and West Palestine?), Israel would no longer be an occupying force but almost certainly, the illegal Israeli settlers will have to leave the West Bank. Now I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about the proposal I've outlined, it is of course infinitely complex but rather I raise it, to demonstrate how futile it is to discuss potential solutions until Israel's hand in negotiations has been significantly reduced. As it stands, they would never agree to the illegal settlers being forced to upsticks, in order to reach a resolution. However they might, if they've been treated by the rest of the world as a pariah state for a few years, suffering crippling sanctions that the West has imposed upon them. Until we see a fundamental shift in US and UK foreign policy towards Israel, we will never, ever see peace in Palestine. The Netenyahu government is not going to negotiate a solution under any circumstances. A precondition of any solution is a change of government and that has to be brought about by the people of Israel - it isn't going to be imposed from the outside. I don't have a problem with the West imposing economic sanctions but that isn't of itself going to solve the problem. You are making this very one sided. It isn't only the Israeli government that is a threat to a lasting peace - it is also Hamas and it's supporters. The Israeli government and the West are right to see Hamas and it's supporters (Hezbollah and Iran) as a security threat to Israel because they are a security threat to Israel - they don't recognise Israel as a legitimate state and are actively seeking to have it eradicated. Your position is premised on mistrusting what the West is doing - you do not believe they are acting in good faith to bring about a lasting solution. I believe you are wrong. The West is supporting Israel in terms of it's right to exist but are actively working with the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar to facilitate a lasting solution. And that solution is a two party state. I'm not surprised you don't want to discuss your 3 state solution any further because literally no-one is talking about that as a solution. You have made it up.The problem with your solution is that there is absolutely no sign that the West are going to do a complete about face on Israel and impose devastating sanctions and it's very likely Israel will refuse to be brought to it's knees - if anything it will harden it's stance. You solution is just fanciful - there is no evidence that anyone with any real influence is going to go that way. The two state solution is the one on the table and the West are working towards it's implementation. You can choose to ignore it if you like but that's the only serious proposal on the table. Your arrogance is simply staggering. Really, just how long would it have taken you to Google "three state solution" before accusing me of making it up and in turn, not then making yourself look like a complete idiot? And it wouldn't have mattered if it was a proposal of my own, (I actually could debate it with you for hours because I understand the complexities of it as a concept and the pro's and con's that it entails) because I went to great lengths to explain that I was using it as nothing more than an example, to illustrate the futility of talking about solutions until the playing field has (at least in part) been levelled. I am not making it one sided at all, indeed the complete opposite, I'm suggesting that unless you have a semblance of balance at the beginning, then negotiations will be destined to fail, in the end. Supplying Isreal with billions of pounds of military equipment to flatten Gaza is in no way, working towards a two state solution. 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, you can take that to the bank.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 17, 2024 13:12:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 17, 2024 13:12:17 GMT
The Netenyahu government is not going to negotiate a solution under any circumstances. A precondition of any solution is a change of government and that has to be brought about by the people of Israel - it isn't going to be imposed from the outside. I don't have a problem with the West imposing economic sanctions but that isn't of itself going to solve the problem. You are making this very one sided. It isn't only the Israeli government that is a threat to a lasting peace - it is also Hamas and it's supporters. The Israeli government and the West are right to see Hamas and it's supporters (Hezbollah and Iran) as a security threat to Israel because they are a security threat to Israel - they don't recognise Israel as a legitimate state and are actively seeking to have it eradicated. Your position is premised on mistrusting what the West is doing - you do not believe they are acting in good faith to bring about a lasting solution. I believe you are wrong. The West is supporting Israel in terms of it's right to exist but are actively working with the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar to facilitate a lasting solution. And that solution is a two party state. I'm not surprised you don't want to discuss your 3 state solution any further because literally no-one is talking about that as a solution. You have made it up.The problem with your solution is that there is absolutely no sign that the West are going to do a complete about face on Israel and impose devastating sanctions and it's very likely Israel will refuse to be brought to it's knees - if anything it will harden it's stance. You solution is just fanciful - there is no evidence that anyone with any real influence is going to go that way. The two state solution is the one on the table and the West are working towards it's implementation. You can choose to ignore it if you like but that's the only serious proposal on the table. Your arrogance is simply staggering. Really, just how long would it have taken you to Google "three state solution" before accusing me of making it up and in turn, not then making yourself look like a complete idiot? And it wouldn't have mattered if it was a proposal of my own, (I actually could debate it with you for hours because I understand the complexities of it as a concept and the pro's and con's that it entails) because I went to great lengths to explain that I was using it as nothing more than an example, to illustrate the futility of talking about solutions until the playing field has (at least in part) been levelled. I am not making it one sided at all, indeed the complete opposite, I'm suggesting that unless you have a semblance of balance at the beginning, then negotiations will be destined to fail, in the end. Supplying Isreal with billions of pounds of military equipment to flatten Gaza is in no way, working towards a two state solution. 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, you can take that to the bank. I do indeed owe you an apology over the three state solution it is a thing - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-state_solution#:~:text=The%20three%2Dstate%20solution%2C%20also,the%20Gaza%20Strip%20to%20Egypt. It might actually help if you provide some material to support your position. From what I can make out this was floated over a decade ago and doesn't seem to have got anywhere. I'm not seeing anyone tabling this as a solution to the current situation. What exactly do you mean by a semblance of balance? Do you mean in terms of military capacity? I am in no way condoning what Israel is doing to Gaza - they are clearly going beyond their remit to eradicate Hamas as a security threat. However if there were a military balance between Israel and it's enemies (and that includes Iran and it's supporters) there would be all out war in the region with the ultimate outcome of the eradication of Israel. You can speculate on alternative solutions but as far as I can see that is all it is - speculation. The two state solution may be a long way off but as far as I can make out it is the only one in play. If the three state or the one state solution was on the one on the table I'd be saying exactly the same thing - all I'm doing is pointing out that the two state solution is the only one with any significant backing. In terms of facilitating your solution how do you propose bringing about the sea change in US and UK Foreign policy on Israel? It isn't going to change under Trump or Starmer so how do you see it happening? The real difference between our positions isn't the details of the actual solution it is that you have decided to believe that the US and the UK aren't making any serious effort to facilitate a long term peaceful solution while I believe they are. Fundamentally that is a matter of trust and belief and no amount of bickering over detail is going to resolve that.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 17, 2024 14:09:13 GMT
I understand how the GFA works and that the US, EU and ROI all have a role in supporting it. However the fact remains that the solution to the NI situation is not a one state solution with the protagonists living in harmony in an autonomous internationally recognised independent state. NI is not a state. It is a "statelet" with devolved power subsumed in the governance of a bigger state - currently the UK and possibly ROI in the future depending on the will of the people of NI. An equivalent political solution is not possible for Israel/Palestine. There is no overarching state in which the "statelet" of Israel/Palestine can reside. The solution is either a single independent state or two independent states. That is not the same political solution as the one for NI. Your analogy breaks down when it comes to the fundamentals of the solution. You are right in that the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt have a role to play with the US and UK acting as honest brokers for Israelis and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt doing the same for the Palestinians. The thing is this is already happening: www.timesofisrael.com/saudis-want-steps-toward-two-state-solution-for-normalization-blinken-says/:"US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that Saudi Arabia has conveyed to the United States that advancing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a critical component of a potential normalization deal that Washington is brokering between Riyadh and Jerusalem." In an interview on the Pod Save the World podcast, Blinken reiterated the Biden administration’s position that efforts to expand the Abraham Accords are not a substitute for Israeli-Palestinian peace. “In our judgement… that needs to involve a two-state solution,” he said. A one or two state solution isn't some minor detail - it is a fundamental condition of any agreement that the likes of Saudi Arabia and US are prepared to broker. You have either missed out on the coverage of what has been going on behind the scenes or are choosing to ignore it because you have made you mind up that the UK and the US are inherently bad actors and are not seeking a solution to the problem. They are, as are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt - and that solution is a two state solution. If you can find any evidence to support moves to implement a one state/NI style solution please provide it - all I can find is evidence of the major players needed to bring about a solution supporting the two state solution. With respect, the fundamental point that you are missing, is that Israel isn't going to negotiate in good faith, until it has been brought to it's knees, in the same way that South Africa was in the 80's. It has to be made aware, through strong political and economic sanctions, that the world does not and will not accept apartheid of the Palestinan people. Until the point of a relatively more level playing field is reached, any negotiations will be heavily skewed in Israels favour and ultimately, they will lead nowhere. And it is at THIS point that we can then start considering practical ways to make a solution work, anything prior to that, will be just empty rhetoric on the part of Western leaders pretending that they genuinely want to achieve a resolution. Furthermore, a one or two state solution aren't the only options. It won't be until Israel's power has been reduced and we can see how the land lies at that point, that we will then be able to enter into more informed negotiations. As it stands, Israel isn't going to accept a two state solution under any circumstances because it will regard the Palestinian state as nothing more than a missile state and will see it as a permanent existential threat to it's security. Hence we may wish to consider a THREE state solution, where Egypt occupies Gaza and Jordan occupies the West Bank. All three states would be internationally recognised (possibly East and West Palestine?), Israel would no longer be an occupying force but almost certainly, the illegal Israeli settlers will have to leave the West Bank. Now I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about the proposal I've outlined, it is of course infinitely complex but rather I raise it, to demonstrate how futile it is to discuss potential solutions until Israel's hand in negotiations has been significantly reduced. As it stands, they would never agree to the illegal settlers being forced to upsticks, in order to reach a resolution. However they might, if they've been treated by the rest of the world as a pariah state for a few years, suffering crippling sanctions that the West has imposed upon them. Until we see a fundamental shift in US and UK foreign policy towards Israel, we will never, ever see peace in Palestine. Precisely Paul 👍 I'm done debating the minutia when the fundamentals aren't in place
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 17, 2024 14:32:18 GMT
Your arrogance is simply staggering. Really, just how long would it have taken you to Google "three state solution" before accusing me of making it up and in turn, not then making yourself look like a complete idiot? And it wouldn't have mattered if it was a proposal of my own, (I actually could debate it with you for hours because I understand the complexities of it as a concept and the pro's and con's that it entails) because I went to great lengths to explain that I was using it as nothing more than an example, to illustrate the futility of talking about solutions until the playing field has (at least in part) been levelled. I am not making it one sided at all, indeed the complete opposite, I'm suggesting that unless you have a semblance of balance at the beginning, then negotiations will be destined to fail, in the end. Supplying Isreal with billions of pounds of military equipment to flatten Gaza is in no way, working towards a two state solution. 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, you can take that to the bank. I do indeed owe you an apology over the three state solution it is a thing - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-state_solution#:~:text=The%20three%2Dstate%20solution%2C%20also,the%20Gaza%20Strip%20to%20Egypt. It might actually help if you provide some material to support your position. From what I can make out this was floated over a decade ago and doesn't seem to have got anywhere. I'm not seeing anyone tabling this as a solution to the current situation. What exactly do you mean by a semblance of balance? Do you mean in terms of military capacity? I am in no way condoning what Israel is doing to Gaza - they are clearly going beyond their remit to eradicate Hamas as a security threat. However if there were a military balance between Israel and it's enemies (and that includes Iran and it's supporters) there would be all out war in the region with the ultimate outcome of the eradication of Israel. You can speculate on alternative solutions but as far as I can see that is all it is - speculation. The two state solution may be a long way off but as far as I can make out it is the only one in play. If the three state or the one state solution was on the one on the table I'd be saying exactly the same thing - all I'm doing is pointing out that the two state solution is the only one with any significant backing. In terms of facilitating your solution how do you propose bringing about the sea change in US and UK Foreign policy on Israel? It isn't going to change under Trump or Starmer so how do you see it happening? The real difference between our positions isn't the details of the actual solution it is that you have decided to believe that the US and the UK aren't making any serious effort to facilitate a long term peaceful solution while I believe they are. Fundamentally that is a matter of trust and belief and no amount of bickering over detail is going to resolve that.
Apology accepted.
If you Google 'three state solution', the first 20 results are all links to articles discussing it is as a possibility from either this year or last year, so there certainly are plenty of people currently discussing it (both pro and against) but that is actually totally irrelevant to the point I was making (I've made it twice now) and is also why there was no reason for me to provide any links of reference to it. It's not the only other potential solution either. It was merely used as an example of how putting the cart before the horse can lead to major difficulties in negotiations later down the line.
The point was to illustrate the futility of speculating over potential solutions until the field has been (at least in part) leveled between the two parties negotiating.
How on earth you can have the audacity to accuse me of speculating about solutions, when that is exactly what I've been pulling you up on, over the last few posts. Go back and read them (slowly, this time) if you like.
In terms of a semblance of balance, yes I'm talking militarily in part but (obviously) not as you are suggesting by increasing Palestine's but by (significantly) reducing Israel's. But also, just as importantly by leveling up, politically, economically and internationally. There is absolutely no way that apartheid would have ended in South Africa if it wasn't for the World creating such tough cultural, political and economic sanctions against the Afrikaans regime, remember both Regan and Thatcher were against sanctions but ultimately, they had to fall in line with world opinion.
I haven't said that a two state solution won't work either, I've said (repeatedly) that talk of any solutions is premature, until a more equal footing is achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians. How do you think negotiations would ultimately work out between somebody with a machine gun and another person with a bow and arrow?
With respect, to suggest that you 'trust' you the Americans and the British when it comes to Israel is imho, completely naive at best and no we're not bickering over detail, we have a fundamental difference in opinion about how to even begin the road to peace.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 17, 2024 14:58:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 17, 2024 14:58:14 GMT
I do indeed owe you an apology over the three state solution it is a thing - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-state_solution#:~:text=The%20three%2Dstate%20solution%2C%20also,the%20Gaza%20Strip%20to%20Egypt. It might actually help if you provide some material to support your position. From what I can make out this was floated over a decade ago and doesn't seem to have got anywhere. I'm not seeing anyone tabling this as a solution to the current situation. What exactly do you mean by a semblance of balance? Do you mean in terms of military capacity? I am in no way condoning what Israel is doing to Gaza - they are clearly going beyond their remit to eradicate Hamas as a security threat. However if there were a military balance between Israel and it's enemies (and that includes Iran and it's supporters) there would be all out war in the region with the ultimate outcome of the eradication of Israel. You can speculate on alternative solutions but as far as I can see that is all it is - speculation. The two state solution may be a long way off but as far as I can make out it is the only one in play. If the three state or the one state solution was on the one on the table I'd be saying exactly the same thing - all I'm doing is pointing out that the two state solution is the only one with any significant backing. In terms of facilitating your solution how do you propose bringing about the sea change in US and UK Foreign policy on Israel? It isn't going to change under Trump or Starmer so how do you see it happening? The real difference between our positions isn't the details of the actual solution it is that you have decided to believe that the US and the UK aren't making any serious effort to facilitate a long term peaceful solution while I believe they are. Fundamentally that is a matter of trust and belief and no amount of bickering over detail is going to resolve that. Apology accepted. If you Google 'three state solution', the first 20 results are all links to articles discussing it is as a possibility from either this year or last year, so there certainly are plenty of people currently discussing it (both pro and against) but that is actually totally irrelevant to the point I was making (I've made it twice now) and is also why there was no reason for me to provide any links of reference to it. It's not the only other potential solution either. It was merely used as an example of how putting the cart before the horse can lead to major difficulties in negotiations later down the line.
The point was to illustrate the futility of speculating over potential solutions until the field has been (at least in part) leveled between the two parties negotiating.
How on earth you can have the audacity to accuse me of speculating about solutions, when that is exactly what I've been pulling you up on, over the last few posts. Go back and read them (slowly, this time) if you like. In terms of a semblance of balance, yes I'm talking militarily in part but (obviously) not as you are suggesting by increasing Palestine's but by (significantly) reducing Israel's. But also, just as importantly by leveling up, politically, economically and internationally. There is absolutely no way that apartheid would have ended in South Africa if it wasn't for the World creating such tough cultural, political and economic sanctions against the Afrikaans regime, remember both Regan and Thatcher were against sanctions but ultimately, they had to fall in line with world opinion. I haven't said that a two state solution won't work either, I've said (repeatedly) that talk of any solutions is premature, until a more equal footing is achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians. How do you think negotiations would ultimately work out between somebody with a machine gun and another person with a bow and arrow? With respect, to suggest that you 'trust' you the Americans and the British when it comes to Israel is imho, completely naive at best and no we're not bickering over detail, we have a fundamental difference in opinion about how to even begin the road to peace.
So I said in my previous post your roadmap for a solution requires a sea change in US and UK foreign policy towards Isreal followed by some sort of levelling of the playing field. There has definitely been a subtle shift and quite recently the Biden actually publicly criticised Isreal but there is absolutely no indication of the sort of sea change in policy required to even start peace talks on the basis you are advocating. So basically your solution isn't really a viable solution because there is absolutely no indication that the US or the UK are going to do what you want them to do to even to even start the process. In the meantime the US and the UK are actually talking to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the Isreali government and the Palestinian authorities on the West Bank about a two state solution. That is not speculation on my part - this has been happening. We might have different takes on the extent the engagement is authentic but the fact remains it is happening. To date you have provided no evidence to support that there are moves in the UK and US to change foreign policy and level the playing field. You might believe that is the only route to a peaceful solution but the fact remains there is no sign of it happening. Theoretical solutions are great but when it comes to political solutions there has to be action. As far as I can see your solution is still on the drawing board whereas the two state solution is actually being actively worked on. If you have any evidence to indicate that your suggested approach is actually off the ground I will concede your solution has legs. Until then I'll stick to looking for some hope in what's actually happening.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 17, 2024 16:16:16 GMT
Apology accepted. If you Google 'three state solution', the first 20 results are all links to articles discussing it is as a possibility from either this year or last year, so there certainly are plenty of people currently discussing it (both pro and against) but that is actually totally irrelevant to the point I was making (I've made it twice now) and is also why there was no reason for me to provide any links of reference to it. It's not the only other potential solution either. It was merely used as an example of how putting the cart before the horse can lead to major difficulties in negotiations later down the line.
The point was to illustrate the futility of speculating over potential solutions until the field has been (at least in part) leveled between the two parties negotiating.
How on earth you can have the audacity to accuse me of speculating about solutions, when that is exactly what I've been pulling you up on, over the last few posts. Go back and read them (slowly, this time) if you like. In terms of a semblance of balance, yes I'm talking militarily in part but (obviously) not as you are suggesting by increasing Palestine's but by (significantly) reducing Israel's. But also, just as importantly by leveling up, politically, economically and internationally. There is absolutely no way that apartheid would have ended in South Africa if it wasn't for the World creating such tough cultural, political and economic sanctions against the Afrikaans regime, remember both Regan and Thatcher were against sanctions but ultimately, they had to fall in line with world opinion. I haven't said that a two state solution won't work either, I've said (repeatedly) that talk of any solutions is premature, until a more equal footing is achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians. How do you think negotiations would ultimately work out between somebody with a machine gun and another person with a bow and arrow? With respect, to suggest that you 'trust' you the Americans and the British when it comes to Israel is imho, completely naive at best and no we're not bickering over detail, we have a fundamental difference in opinion about how to even begin the road to peace.
So I said in my previous post your roadmap for a solution requires a sea change in US and UK foreign policy towards Isreal followed by some sort of levelling of the playing field. There has definitely been a subtle shift and quite recently the Biden actually publicly criticised Isreal but there is absolutely no indication of the sort of sea change in policy required to even start peace talks on the basis you are advocating. So basically your solution isn't really a viable solution because there is absolutely no indication that the US or the UK are going to do what you want them to do to even to even start the process. In the meantime the US and the UK are actually talking to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the Isreali government and the Palestinian authorities on the West Bank about a two state solution. That is not speculation on my part - this has been happening. We might have different takes on the extent the engagement is authentic but the fact remains it is happening. To date you have provided no evidence to support that there are moves in the UK and US to change foreign policy and level the playing field. You might believe that is the only route to a peaceful solution but the fact remains there is no sign of it happening. Theoretical solutions are great but when it comes to political solutions there has to be action. As far as I can see your solution is still on the drawing board whereas the two state solution is actually being actively worked on. If you have any evidence to indicate that your suggested approach is actually off the ground I will concede your solution has legs. Until then I'll stick to looking for some hope in what's actually happening. A two state solution is NOT off the ground at all. Speculative remarks from the likes of Cameron, Blinken and the Suadi's, claiming that it is something they would like to ultimately achieve, is NOT (as you have suggested) the only serious proposal on the table. Indeed there isn't a table and there certainly aren't any serious proposals on it. And even if there was a table, do you think it's one that the Israeli's and the Palestinians would currently sit around? At this moment it is ALL rhetoric and all solutions are theoretical. Myself and wannabee are just suggesting (based on the history of the conflict over decades) that a sequence of events need to take place before we get people round a table to even begin to negotiate.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 17, 2024 18:53:45 GMT
Post by desman2 on Apr 17, 2024 18:53:45 GMT
|
|