|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 17, 2024 9:24:19 GMT
Hang on a sec. we're posting on a thread that for 18 months has been debating the topic in hand, exclusively in the context of the United Kingdom. And wannabee was asking has the topic all of sudden expanded (I see we're on to New York now too) , I think that's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and more importantly, where has wannabee remotely suggested in his post that the plumber's "working class opinion does not matter at all"?
What is the thread titled? Does it say it has to be about the UK? Nope and I didnt say that it had to be.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 17, 2024 8:46:40 GMT
What is the link you're making between the two videos BJR?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 17, 2024 8:34:07 GMT
I'm wondering why this is relevant to "Uncontrolled Immigration" to the UK Has the topic expanded? Should we have concerns about the Mexico Border? Should we include the biggest Refugee Host Country Iran who are accepting Millions from Afghanistan after the failed US and UK sortie Or perhaps No 2 Turkey where millions have fled from Syria Or perhaps the No 3 Refugee host Germany with over 1 million from Ukraine, 700,000 from Syria, 240,000 from Afghanistan, and over 150,000 from Iraq. It would be useful to know the ground rules I don't think there are any ground rules Wannabee. I've always presumed people can post what they want as long as it doesn't break the "Admin rules". I presume that Ian posted his post as an example of a working class person in the EU who is concerned about the effects of immigration on his local community. Concern isn't restricted to the UK, Id imagine there is concern across the countries you list. Alongside that, the European seems to feel in the dark about what is happening, that his political masters are not listening to him and he is helpless about what he can do aboutit. Your post seems to be saying that other countries take alot of immigrants therefore his working class opinion does not matter at all, he's only a plumber....at least not to the left.
Hang on a sec. we're posting on a thread that for 18 months has been debating the topic in hand, exclusively in the context of the United Kingdom. And wannabee was asking has the topic all of sudden expanded (I see we're on to New York now too) , I think that's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and more importantly, where has wannabee remotely suggested in his post that the plumber's "working class opinion does not matter at all"?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 23:38:41 GMT
A complete lack of self awareness and totally plastered ...
|
|
|
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 ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 20:02:58 GMT
This one really hasn’t been thought through To be fair, that's nothing new with this lot!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 18:21:22 GMT
This needs putting to bed, the Tories aren't even going to be in power in six months ... Works well for Tories. They can continue to fan the flames, while the legislation is blocked by their own friends. This way, they can spend time, money and attention on a small matter and be seen to be doing something. The last thing that they probably want is for it to actually go through. Indeed and it's utterly pathetic!
|
|
|
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 Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 18:01:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 17:37:00 GMT
This needs putting to bed, the Tories aren't even going to be in power in six months ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 16:50:23 GMT
Exactly. If we don't have a small boats 'crisis', then who else are we going to have to blame for everything being shit? Are you saying that uncontrolled immigration isn't a problem? If so, then why bother posting on this thread other than to antagonise others and try to look like a smart arse. Blimey you are both ignorant and tiresome, I'm done with your immaturity.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 15:59:21 GMT
The right wing freak show hits the road and nobody wants them............... A pretty fair summing up, I think ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 15:42:20 GMT
Israeli fascism and terrorism ...
|
|
|
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 12:10:00 GMT
At over 6 hours in length, I'm going to have do this in stages! 😁
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 12:06:37 GMT
This has proven to be completely false, by Israel's own records of those who were killed on October 7th. Zionism is like a cult, she's gone from being the girl next door mathematician on one of Britain's most loved shows to spewing propaganda and Islamophobia....... "I haven't seen the videos but I know some people who (say they) have." FFS Miss Riley, get in the bin ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 11:12:27 GMT
Omg she really is mad just watched lizzy truss on breakfast She's deluded and others are tp blame not her Jaw droppingly stupid Makes Diane Abbott look on the ball Jaw droppingly stupid and potentially very dangerous. This is absolutely brilliant, sadly most people won't watch it though ... /mediaViewer?currentTweet=1577583546524385280¤tTweetUser=GeorgeMonbiot
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 16, 2024 10:42:15 GMT
Utterly abhorrent ...
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 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?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 15, 2024 22:28:11 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?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 15, 2024 22:09:29 GMT
|
|
|
England
Apr 15, 2024 20:58:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 15, 2024 20:58:27 GMT
Oh I know but the question is, how much do you lose of Bellingham's attacking prowess by asking him to play in a deeper role? And I'm far from saying that it's clear cut, I've been going back to on it for the last couple of months.
I think you lose a bit but you have a better (imo) player taking up that central role in Foden. Quite possibly. I'd go as far as to suggest that getting this call right, could define our whole competition.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 15, 2024 20:36:20 GMT
He is.
Not as good as he is at number 10 but he is quite brilliant right across the three.
I’d argue it’s his least effective position. Don’t get me wrong he’s brilliant but he needs to be central or at worst right
That maybe but I'd still start him ahead of Rashford or Gordon and by some distance.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 15, 2024 20:32:59 GMT
Nope, Rice can't do it on his own. Foden--------Bellingham---------Palmer/Saka* ----------Rice--------Mainoo---------------- *On current form, I'd play Palmer over Saka but Southgate won't.
He wouldn’t be on his own. Bellingham gets stuck in.
Oh I know but the question is, how much do you lose of Bellingham's attacking prowess by asking him to play in a deeper role?
And I'm far from saying that it's clear cut, I've been going back to on it for the last couple of months.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 15, 2024 20:29:06 GMT
Foden on the left though? It’s annoying we don’t have a left sided forward apart from Rashford. We can’t shoe horn players in no matter how good they are. I hate to say it but Rashford on the left for me for the sake of the team. I’m depressed about that comment, convince me otherwise Grealish (not at the top of his game mind) or Gordon Sterling if there are some injuries
Gordon is in great form at the moment.
|
|