|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 11:17:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 11:17:46 GMT
Well fair enough you have got behind a one state solution as the way forward. Personally I don't have a problem with that and it would be great if it could happen. However there appears to be no-one looking to make this happen whereas there are a number of players looking to bring about a two state solution. I may be being unduly unrealistic about a two state solution but a one state solution appears even less likely at the moment. There are some parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland but there are some fundamental differences that make your analogy a bit flakey. The Protestants and the Catholics did put down their arms but the solution was not a single state. Northern Ireland is not an independent state - it is part of the UK. Also built into the political solution is the possibility of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland if a majority so wish. And at some point that will happen. The solution in the case of Northern Ireland isn't a one state solution, it is a two state solution - the two states being the UK and Ireland. And at no point in the conflict have the two states denied the other the right to exist or engaged in military/terrorist activity to bring this about. I think you are pushing the analogy way too far. I am not wedded to a One State Solution, any solution even an interim one most likely would be better than the current situation. Politicians including from UK mouth Platitudes about a Two State Solution but in reality while Israel holds the whip hand it has no intention or interest in reaching a solution and certainly not on the 1967 Borders with a right of return for Palestinians. The last serious attempt at a solution was Clinton's failed Camp David talks with Barak and Arafat 24 years ago. A solution could only be imposed on Israel through a strong US President by coercion and I don't see any of those on the Horizon Of course the Northern Ireland situation doesn't exactly mirror Israel/Palestine but there are more parallels than you give credit for. The main difference was that both combatants wanted to reach a settlement but it required an honest Broker, Clinton again, or more especially his Envoy George Mitchell to plot a course. The beauty of the GFA is its ambiguity it can and does mean different things to different people, but the solution is very much a One Statelet Solution with people coexisting. At the 2021 NI Census 32% considered themselves British 29% Irish 20% Northern Irish and the remainder a combination or none of the above. The Single biggest Political Party Sinn Fein hold the Office of First Minister in NI it also has 7 MPs elected to Westminster but they refuse to take their seats. Sinn Fein and its leaders are happy to meet UK Politicians in Belfast, London or Dublin it is the ambiguity which allows the accord to continue. Brexit and specifically the Protocol/Windsor Framework disturbed that ambiguity because Unionists were confronted with a different reality than which they wanted to believe. I also dispute the second part of your final paragraph. ROI needed to hold a Referendum to alter its Constitution to recognise the Statelet of NI to ratify GFA as it had never done so before. In the 1970s two Irish Government Ministers went on Trial for smuggling Arms and Ammunition from Europe to the IRA in NI. One Haughey went on to become Prime Minister. They were acquitted by a Jury who found they were acting on behalf of the Irish Government. I consider that to be engaging in Military Action. In terms of your analogy there are two distinct aspects of the solution: 1 The representatives of the two factions agreed to put down their arms and pursue a political solution. That is exactly what is required in Isreal but neither the Isreali government nor Hamas are anywhere near taking that step. That is a prerequisite for either a one state our two state solution. 2 The practical political arrangement to resolve the NI situation was not a one state solution. It was the creation of a devolved assembly (statelet in your terms) operating in the context of an overarching state (currently the UK, potentially Ireland at some point in the future). Northern Ireland has not resolved it's issues by creating a harmonious autonomous state - the practical political solution involves it's incorporation in an overarching state that assists in the maintenance of the peace. This political solution simply isn't an option for Israel/Palestine - there is no overarching state for a unified statelet to find a home. A long term solution has to be supported by the majority in both the Isreali community and the Palestinian community and my understanding (which may be wrong) is that the majority want to live in their own autonomous state and that is what the moderates in both communities have been arguing for years and of late is being supported by the West and the likes of Saudi Arabia and others in the area. Where is the support for a one state solution? Who is backing this, both within the Isreali and Palestinian communities and in the International community? I'm not against this as a solution I just don't see anything happening on the ground to make it happen whereas there are plenty of influential players working towards a two state solution. I admit my support for a two state solution might be overly optimistic but as things stand it looks to me a damn sight more realistic than a one state solution.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 10:53:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 10:53:06 GMT
The Shah of Iran was a hated western puppet. That regime created the conditions of resentment that lead to today's repressive theocracy. Your representation of the position of women in Iran is unreal. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests. Women have been systematically raped, beaten and killed protesting against the Iranian government - you are way off the mark on this one. There are many people in Iran who would like to see the current Theocracy removed and a more Western style democracy introduced but unlike the regime under the Shah this has to come from within. Until that happens (and I hope it does) Iran is a massive problem in terms of peace in the region and treatment of its own people, especially women. I'm not trying to whitewash Irans recent history with women at all, I've said numerous times that I'm not implying they're a beacon of democracy. I'm simply saying they're no worse than many other countries in the region and I stand by that. What caused Iran to be more westernised? Well that was the 1953 coup led by the US and British military. And what predated that? The prime minister wanting to audit the British run Iranian Oil to ensure they were paying the proper royalties and limit their control on Iranian oil - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tatIf we were to flip things round a bit. It would be like Iranians controlling some of our public services. We vote to nationalise then. We then get invaded by Iran and Iraq who place a head of state who allies with them and then introduces sharia law. Something nationalists in the uk fear. And then so many years on we get control back of our country and remove sharia law. Then a few decades on you have people fighting to reapply parts of that sharia law. And the middle east and muslim countries then reporting biasly how the whole population wants to go back to sharia law when it's likely just a minority. Again. Not saying Iran is a beacon of human rights but its important context which relates to why we are where we are today. And going back to the western backed Shah royal family who were kept in power and controlled by the west. One of the descendants of the family has been living in America and was supported by the CIA under the Regan administration. The crown Prince of Iran told associated press in 2017, while living in America, "My focus right now is on liberating Iran, and I will find any means that I can, without compromising the national interests and independence, with anyone who is willing to give us a hand, whether it is the U.S. or the Saudis or the Israelis or whomever it is." At the end of the day the way I look at things is. Russia uses nukes, China uses nukes, west uses nukes. Russia uses propoganda, China uses propoganda, of course the west use propoganda. It would be absurd for us to use the same weapons as other super powers but not use propoganda ourselves. Of course we do. And in my opinion Iran is an example of that. We get drip fed stuff in our media which implies it was this land of the free western country because we see a few people walking down a street wearing denim. And we look no further. We hear a few protests over a hijab and we look no further. We don't get told about a monarchy running the country after doing a western backed coup. We don't get told about the elitism and corruption during their reign. We don't get told about how the coup started due to Iran wanting to get British hands over their oil. It's much more complex than our media makes out. There is no right or wrong in these arguments either. I know I'm only scratching the surface with my own research. But all of the above and the stuff I'm saying is easily available on Wikipedia. It's not random conspiracies. And it's important context which we never get told about in the uk. And when I read all this context and then look at what we get told in uk media. I can't help but feel that we are purposely only exposed to certain elements of Irans recent and historical past and thst sub consciously influences our views. But when you read in more depth you soon see things are much more complex. I'm sorry but there really isn't anything good to say about the Iranian regime and their treatment of women is appalling. There is a growing unrest about the regime among young people and given time I'm sure the it will collapse. And I am in no way advocating a return to the equivalent of the puppet regime under the Shah - it has to be a government of the Iranian people by the Iranian people. I'm also sure the majority ordinary Iranians are lovely people but if you think the Iranian regime isn't that bad you really aren't reading the room. Incidentally I know a couple who recently visited Iran who have travelled extensively in that area. Their conclusion was it is a beautiful country with an appallingly repressive regime and although they enjoyed the visit they were glad to get out - particularly as a woman. That might be anecdotal evidence but it certainly isn't western propaganda.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 8:46:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 8:46:04 GMT
And I don't agree with your characterisation of the current situation. And every time I ask you for your idea of a solution you (and others) refuse to provide one. This is simply not true. Right from the beginning, I have suggested to you that the only way peace can be achieved in the ME, is by us seeing a diametric shift in the attitudes of the West (particularly the US and the UK) in regard to Israel. For decades now, Israel has acted with impunity. It has had as many UN resolutions levied against it, as all the other nations on earth combined! But these resolutions end up carrying no clout whatsoever because ultimately, the US and the UK simply veto any proposed sanctions against them. You on the other hand have suggested that peace has to start within Israel itself, we fundamentally disagree which is fine but please, don't suggest I've avoided any discussion on a possible solution, that is patently untrue. As for whether we should be looking towards a one or two state solution, that for me, is jumping the gun massively and is so far down the road, that it makes dialogue over it pointless at this stage. In my opinion, Israel needs to be treated as a pariah state, in the same way that South Africa was in the 70's and the 80's and literally be brought to it's knees through severe economic and political sanctions and when we reach a point where Israel realises that it can no longer simply to do what the fuck it wants because the world no longer accepts it's brutal policy of apartheid, it is at this point that we can begin to discuss more practical solutions to move forward. Without this shift from the West, there will never be peace in the ME and the violence will simply continues for decades more. Israel won't ever negotiate in good faith, as long as it believes the West has it's back. Of course Netanyahu has championed Hamas as a means of preventing a two state solution. Both Netanyahu and Hamas (and Iran) are on the same page - they both want to eradicate the other side.
We agree. I'm sure the majority of people in Iran don't want to kill Isreali's and I'm sure the majority of Isreali's don't want to kill Iranians. However the Islamic Republic would go to war with Israel in order to fulfill their stated aim - to eradicate the state of Israel. The only reason they don't go for all out war is because they know that the combined military power of Israel and their Western supporters would result in defeat. As Prestwich pointed out to you the other day, we absolutely missed a trick when we didn't get round the table with the previous moderate Iranian regime of Hassan Rouhani due to the West's blinkered perception of Iran = bad and Israel = good. However that doesn't mean that all is lost, there are powerful moderate clerics in Iran like Mowlavi Abdolhamid, who are completely opposed to any type of conflict with Israel and preach a message of peace between the two countries and a respect for each others religions. These voices need to be amplified by the West and especially by the Western media. As for the Islamic Republic, they don't want to go to war with Israel, for the very reasons that you have offered but protecting Israel borders from Islamic fundamentalists, is very different from arming the Israelis to the teeth to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians are two completely different things. That's why I said that I didn't accept the premise of you question. And I really don't know why people so easily conflate the two, although of course this exactly what Israel wants us to do. Apartheid does indeed exist in Israel and will continue to do something until a two state suction is finally implemented. We agree. I simply do not believe the West is supplying Isreal with arms in order to allow Israel to commit genocide. I believe they are supplying arms to Israel to help preserve it's existence (because they have neighbours who would eradicate Israel if they had the chance) and in support of Isreal's right to defend itself against a terrorist organisation in Hamas.See my answer above.However I do believe the Netanyahu government is taking the piss and deliberately going beyond their stated remit and are looking to kill as many Palestinians as they possibly can and if they can remove all Palestinians from Gaza they would. The West are not on board with this and are putting the Isreali government under increasing pressure to come up with a long term humanitarian solution once they have defeated Hamas. I think the position of the West is all over the place and quite frankly, they have got the first clue about what they're actually attempting to achieve, much to the detriment of the Palestinan people. So no the West is not supporting Isreal's right to do what the fuck it likes. It is treading a fine line in supporting Isreal's right to exist and putting pressure on it to find a long term solution and that long term solution is the recognition of a Palestinian state that in turn recognises the state of Isreal. And the West is part of an ongoing effort in the region to make this happen. Again, see my answer above. Thank you - that is clear description of your position. I'm sure there is the hope of a more tolerant regime in Iran but the fact is that isn't the current position and Iran is a threat to peace in the region. A moderate Theocracy might be a starting point but personally I think all Theocracies are a problem - the separation of church and state is a good thing. I don't have a problem with the West putting more pressure on Israel but the bottom line is they will continue to support Israel while there is a very real threat to its very existence. I think you are under estimating the amount of pressure the West is putting on the Isreali government to find a long term solution to the situation in Gaza and there are significant moves behind the scenes to bring about a two state solution. Yes more could be done but I don't think you are recognising the significant change in the relationships behind the scenes. Support for Israel is far from being as unconditional as it was before Israel's attack on Gaza. I suspect the West is waiting for the Netanyhu's government to collapse in order to move things on and that has to come from the people of Israel in the same way that the Palestinians in Gaza need to find an alternative voice to Hamas.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 8:00:11 GMT
Well fair enough you have got behind a one state solution as the way forward. Personally I don't have a problem with that and it would be great if it could happen. However there appears to be no-one looking to make this happen whereas there are a number of players looking to bring about a two state solution. I may be being unduly unrealistic about a two state solution but a one state solution appears even less likely at the moment. There are some parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland but there are some fundamental differences that make your analogy a bit flakey. The Protestants and the Catholics did put down their arms but the solution was not a single state. Northern Ireland is not an independent state - it is part of the UK. Also built into the political solution is the possibility of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland if a majority so wish. And at some point that will happen. The solution in the case of Northern Ireland isn't a one state solution, it is a two state solution - the two states being the UK and Ireland. And at no point in the conflict have the two states denied the other the right to exist or engaged in military/terrorist activity to bring this about. I think you are pushing the analogy way too far. I think the time has passed for a genuine Two state solution. A Palestinian state would not be allowed to be a true state. Each state $would be the home to some people who would want to destroy the other stste. Borders could not be agreed, but opposed. I'd prefer a genuine one state....but pragmacally that is also a complete non starter. Israel and the West will never lose their grip on power. IMO eventually I think Israel will technically " withdraw " having destroyed Gaza and leave it with reduced borders and basically ....misery, no future. Whether an " agreement " or solution is in place will be irrelevant. Then it will fade in importantance in the Western psyche/ overt politics/ media. Then sporadic unrest and terrorism and the issue will arise for future generations. Of course I could be completely wrong. The two state solution is very much on the table and is closer than it has been in years. The UK government (through Cameron) has declared it would be prepared recognise a Palestinian state before the details had been ironed out. Saudi Arabia has said it would recognise the state of Israel if a Palestinian state is recognised - that is massive. There are some big players trying to make this happen behind the scenes. Much as I would like to see a one state solution as far as I'm aware no-one with a realistic chance of success is trying to make this happen. I don't think the West will simply walk away from the problem - if they do the cycle of violence will just repeat. The pressure on Israel by the West to accept a long term solution has never been greater. It will require the Netenyahu government getting thrown out of power but that is also looking quite likely. I don't think you are completely wrong and if the West just walk away and turn a blind eye you are probably right. I just don't think they will do that.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 7:48:10 GMT
Said on the wireless recently that we've just had the wettest 18 months on record. So the last 12 months wasn’t wet enough to make such comparisons so the “experts” decided to move the goal posts to a time frame whereby their statistics suited the agenda. Yeah that's it - the "experts" are out to get you. Either that or it's the wettest eighteen months on record. If a football team goes on an 18 month unbeaten run would you whinge that the "experts" should only restrict their stats to what happens in the current season?
|
|
|
Cundle
Apr 16, 2024 7:42:28 GMT
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 7:42:28 GMT
He suffers being in a team with no solid defence. He presses from the front which is what Schumacher wants and he’s pretty good with runs in behind to try and open up that passage of play and show for the ball ( triangles). When the press at the front fails… the back four can’t deal with it so as a midfielder who is probably the attacking box to box midfielder out of the 3 (junho being the CAM, burger staying deep to dictate ) you’re relying on the defence to be able to cover this scenario they don’t, He gets slaughtered for being out of position and he gets called a bad player. I think you can see from his showings he’s intelligent and good offensively. We just don’t have those steel CBs and full backs to allow us to be progressive in attack. Asking him to sit deep and defend he hasn’t got the right attributes for that. Couldn't agree more. In a team with a decent defence he is perfect for the way Schumacher wants to play but our defensive frailties means we are vulnerable. Good spot about him taking up positions in space to receive the ball - thought against Hull in particular he was excellent in that respect, always making himself available.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 6:56:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 6:56:34 GMT
Yeah, I don’t buy it. Here is another article discussing the relationship between Iran, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda: extremism.gwu.edu/al-qaeda-de-facto-leader-sayf-al-adlIran are a piece of shit regime just like Saudi. All they do is fund chaos. The only time they don’t is if that chaos can sit on their own front doorstep. The first article I sent about the first article I sent about the deaths of 500 people who protested for women’s rights two years ago shows as much. I mean, talk about blood on their hands. Of course, it wasn’t as big of a deal because no American-employed journalist was killed. That entire area is a swamp of corruption and hate. Yet, even amongst Muslim majority countries (where personal freedoms are deemed lower than in the “West”), Iran ranks amongst the worst - www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/freedom-muslim-world (right next to Saudi). I'm not here trying to say or suggest that Iran is a beacon of middle east democracy. I don't believe they're the dangerous perpetrator they're made out to be though. I'm sure many of us on here have seen the videos of Iran in the 1970s and how it used to be when it was more westernised for a period in history. Well if you want to talk about women's rights. Heres a comparison for education: Pre 1979 v Post 1979 42.33% Literacy (15–24) 97.70% 24.42% Literacy (>15) 79.23% 48,845 Students[88] 2,191,409 122,753 Graduates[89] 5,023,992 2.4% Graduates (%) 18.4% 19.7 Age at 1st marriage 23.4 And to expand further on that. Read up on the Iranian revolution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution). Women were hugely involved and pioneers in the Iranian revolution and their rights now are much better than they were before, and certainly much better than countries such as Saudi Arabia. Going back to your article. Mate it's just some American saying that a former Egyptian agent who is allegedly this Al qaeda leader is living in Iran. ISIS also occupy parts of Iran, I'm sure Al Qaeda may do too. Its a huge country bigger than all European countries aside from Russia. Over 3x the size of France. They did arrest this leader and have him in prison in the 2000s before doing a prisoner swap deal. Iran has fought in 4 wars against Al Qaeda and 3 against Isis in recent decades. Its just daft to suggest they're allies. All links between Iran and Al Qaeda are "alleged". Only a couple of years ago America were supporting the taliban and Al qaeda in a war: www.france24.com/en/20200310-taliban-fought-is-with-limited-us-military-support-us-general-revealswww.longwarjournal.org/archives/2021/07/taliban-advances-as-u-s-completes-withdrawal.phpIn terms of the hijab it's a complicated history. Again I don't defend Irans position on many things including the hijab but they're much more complex topics than portrayed. I'm not a middle east foreign affairs expert or a historian so understandably I may be incorrect. But compared to all of the middle east, I don't personally see Iran as the big scary wolf they're made out as. The Shah of Iran was a hated western puppet. That regime created the conditions of resentment that lead to today's repressive theocracy. Your representation of the position of women in Iran is unreal. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests. Women have been systematically raped, beaten and killed protesting against the Iranian government - you are way off the mark on this one. There are many people in Iran who would like to see the current Theocracy removed and a more Western style democracy introduced but unlike the regime under the Shah this has to come from within. Until that happens (and I hope it does) Iran is a massive problem in terms of peace in the region and treatment of its own people, especially women.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 6:44:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 6:44:34 GMT
My current thoughts Perhaps some issues are not solvable unless basic(s) mistakes are honestly addressed. If the players are not prepared to that ...no solution. The big mistake which materially impacts on the current situation was the creation of Israel ( or how it was created. I Know we could debate forever when the " problems " first occurred and who was to blame) I don't think a ( genuine) two state solution will now work. Neither country will honestly accept the existence of the other as neighbours , when each would like to see the extinction of the other.The powerful ( Israel ) would insist on having control over the " security" of Palestine, and it would never operate as a self governing country. Israel will never allow a return to the 1967 borders. So what probably will happen is the continued annihilation of the Gaza strip until the point comes that a " peace settlement " will be agreed....but in reality Gaza will just be a completely destroyed non functioning ruin.....and then the hope of the West is that everything will be forgotten, carry on as we were. Just one more thought I think this will polarise people across the world into Pro- Jew or Pro - Muslim....not anti Zionist/ antisemitic/ Islamaphobic/ anti Hamas distinctions....People like things to be " back and white". I too doubt that a Two State Solution is possible, I have debated this with CBUFAWKIPWH on here (I don't expect you to read every post) There has never been an Independent State called Palestine, it is an area historically inhabited by Arabs and controlled in part by Syria and Egypt in relatively recent times up to 1948/1967 The biggest impediment to a One State solution is that Israel is hell bent on administering an Apartheid Zionist State In my debate with CBUFAWKIPWH I referenced Northern Ireland as a previous Apartheid Statelet where the previous combatants came to recognise they could not gain a Military Victory, at least not one with a lasting Peace. It didn't preclude their different aspersions but they agreed to pursue them Politically and Peacefully It wouldn't remove ideological Nut Jobs wanting to establish a Shari'a or Zionist State but of the other current influential actors in the region Saudi would support Iran would not but Leaders change. Overarching to Israel accepting a fait accompli of an equal rights One State Solution requires a US President like Teddy Roosevelt who's Mantra was "Speak softly and carry a big stick" It is definitely in US interests to do this but I don't see the incumbent or whoever is next President having the Chutzpah to carry it off. With regard to your final paragraph my hope is that people would unite rather than polarise against both Islamists and Zionists and understand why, but you may be right. Well fair enough you have got behind a one state solution as the way forward. Personally I don't have a problem with that and it would be great if it could happen. However there appears to be no-one looking to make this happen whereas there are a number of players looking to bring about a two state solution. I may be being unduly unrealistic about a two state solution but a one state solution appears even less likely at the moment. There are some parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland but there are some fundamental differences that make your analogy a bit flakey. The Protestants and the Catholics did put down their arms but the solution was not a single state. Northern Ireland is not an independent state - it is part of the UK. Also built into the political solution is the possibility of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland if a majority so wish. And at some point that will happen. The solution in the case of Northern Ireland isn't a one state solution, it is a two state solution - the two states being the UK and Ireland. And at no point in the conflict have the two states denied the other the right to exist or engaged in military/terrorist activity to bring this about. I think you are pushing the analogy way too far.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 16, 2024 6:23:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 16, 2024 6:23:11 GMT
Both Isreal and Iran are the aggressors and the current leadership in Iran will not recognise the existence of Israel and have repeatedly stated they want it destroyed - as do Hamas. You are underplaying Iran's intent. Equally there are members of the current Isreali government who want to either get rid of all Palestinians from the state of Israel - either that or introduce some form of apartheid. The West do not support the Isreali government's aim of eradicating the Palestinians and they are putting pressure on Israel to formulate a plan for the future of Gaza. They are also working behind the scenes with the likes of Saudi Arabia to facilitate a two state solution. I have been completely clear about my position on this - now it's your turn to answer my question - should the West stop supporting Isreal's right to exist and let Iran achieve it's aim of eradicating it? I don't accept the premise of your question or your characterisation of the current situation. Let's be clear here, Netanyahu himself has championed the existence of Hamas for several years, as a means to PREVENTING a two state solution. The Palestinian authority recognises Israel's right to exist but as long as Hamas keeps control, then how could anybody expect Israel to accept a two state solution? Netanyahu has told us that it is better for Israel if Hamas continues to exist. The Iranian people don't want to go to war with Israel, period and currently, neither do the Islamic Republic. Apartheid already exists in Israel. The money and the bombs being used to carry out the genocide in Gaza, is being supplied by the West, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the West isn't supporting Israel's intentions in this regard. Are the West genuinely supporting Israel's right to exist, or are they supporting Israel's right, to do pretty much whatever the fuck it likes? And I don't agree with your characterisation of the current situation. And every time I ask you for your idea of a solution you (and others) refuse to provide one. Of course Netanyahu has championed Hamas as a means of preventing a two state solution. Both Netanyahu and Hamas (and Iran) are on the same page - they both want to eradicate the other side. I'm sure the majority of people in Iran don't want to kill Isreali's and I'm sure the majority of Isreali's don't want to kill Iranians. However the Islamic Republic would go to war with Israel in order to fulfill their stated aim - to eradicate the state of Israel. The only reason they don't go for all out war is because they know that the combined military power of Israel and their Western supporters would result in defeat. Apartheid does indeed exist in Israel and will continue to do something until a two state suction is finally implemented. I simply do not believe the West is supplying Isreal with arms in order to allow Israel to commit genocide. I believe they are supplying arms to Israel to help preserve it's existence (because they have neighbours who would eradicate Israel if they had the chance) and in support of Isreal's right to defend itself against a terrorist organisation in Hamas. However I do believe the Netanyahu government is taking the piss and deliberately going beyond their stated remit and are looking to kill as many Palestinians as they possibly can and if they can remove all Palestinians from Gaza they would. The West are not on board with this and are putting the Isreali government under increasing pressure to come up with a long term humanitarian solution once they have defeated Hamas. So no the West is not supporting Isreal's right to do what the fuck it likes. It is treading a fine line in supporting Isreal's right to exist and putting pressure on it to find a long term solution and that long term solution is the recognition of a Palestinian state that in turn recognises the state of Isreal. And the West is part of an ongoing effort in the region to make this happen.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 15, 2024 21:58:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 15, 2024 21:58:42 GMT
Iran's position on Isreal is to eradicate it and is engaged an on-going proxy war to that end. They may not be a major threat to the the West but they certainly are a threat to Israel. Do you think the West should stop supporting Isreal's right to exist and let Iran achieve it's goal of eradicating it? If not what do think the West should do? Israels position on Palestine is to eradicate it and is engaged an on going proxy war to that end. They may not be a major threat to the the West but they certainly are a threat to Palestine. Do you think the West should stop supporting Palestines right to exist and let Israel achieve it's goal of eradicating it? If not what do think the West should do? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_Golan_Heightsen.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Banken.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_Southern_Lebanonen.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_Sinai_PeninsulaIf Israel are the innocent victim then why are they the country occupying parts of Palestine, Lebannon, Egypt and Syria? If Iran wanted to eradicate Israel maybe it would be because of their ongoing occupation of other territories and seeing it as a threat. I'm not suggesting they do wish to eradicate Israel in saying this. But from what I can see Israel appears to be more of an aggressor than Iran here. 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?
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 15, 2024 17:36:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 15, 2024 17:36:49 GMT
Saudi Arabia is far from squeaky clean but like it or they are part of the solution. They are prepared to recognise the state of Israel on the condition of Palestine becoming a formally recognised state - that would be a major step forward in a long term solution and is completely different to Iran's position which is not only not recognise the state of Israel but to wipe it off the map. The US and UK position is clear - they will help Israel defend itself but they will not support Israel in a military offensive against Iran and are working with the likes of Saudi Arabia to move towards a two state solution - which is going to require a change of government in Israel and the removal of Hamas as the political leadership in Gaza. It might be far off but realistically there is no other solution short of nuclear war. Well there is an alternative to a two state solution... A one state solution, being Israel, after they've taken over all of the Palestinian territory. The one state solution is what we have now. The Palestinian areas of Gaza and the West Bank are part of the state of Israel. They have a degree of political independence but Palestine does not exist as a separate state. Hamas's stated aim is aligned with Iran and it's supporters in wanting to eradicate Israel. This is never going to be accepted by the West and Isreal will continue to receive military support to prevent that from happening. I'm sure there are people in the current Isreali government that want to either displace all Palestinians from Israel or kill those on "their" land but that outcome is not supported by the West. In fact the Isreali government is under pressure from the West to come up with a viable long term solution and those outcomes will not be considered acceptable. The West and the likes of Saudi Arabia are working in the background to facilitate a two state solution. To my knowledge no-one is doing anything to facilitate a single state solution where Palestinians and Isreali's are going to share power in a single state. It might be way off but the two state solution is the only solution on the table that does not include committing genocide against either the Palestinians or the Isreali's.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 15, 2024 16:47:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 15, 2024 16:47:32 GMT
Quite a lot given that they openly fund terrorist regimes and they have an awful human rights record of their own: “Security forces repressed widespread protests that erupted across the country in September 2022 with unlawful killing, torture, sexually assault, and enforced disappearances of protestors, including women and children, as part of a pattern of serious violations. Human rights groups are investigating the reported deaths of approximately 500 protestors, including at least 68 children. In the majority of cases, security forces reportedly shot the victims using various types of bullets.” www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/iranThey are an awful regime. Saudi are just using Israel here as an extra to their sports washing efforts to repaint themselves as a decent country. They aren’t. They suck as well. The Middle East just consists of a bunch of tossers that can’t play well with others while countries like the US and UK bet on the winner. It’s like a hobo fight sponsored by arrogant rich kids. By openly fund terrorist organisations do you mean the likes of Hezbollah? Why were Hezbollah formed? Hezbollah was established by Lebanese clerics primarily to fight the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Or Hamas? Why were hamas formed? Hamas was founded by Palestinian imam and activist Ahmed Yassin in 1987, after the outbreak of the First Intifada against the Israeli occupation I don't think Saudi are using Israel. They're very close to confirming diplomatic ties which include assistance with developing nukes. Had Oct 7th not happened they may have already formalised relations. No doubt it will come soon - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relationsI'm not trying to hold Iran up as some beacon of light here either. Just simply highlighting that I don't quite understand why they're such a threat compared to Saudi and Israel whom have more blood on their hands in recent years. Well we know why they're a threat because they're not a western ally and support regimes oppressed by Israel. But morally are they worse than other Middle East nations or the worst of the lot as implied? I'm not sure. Just like I'm not sure Iraq or Afghanstan are as bad as once implied either. Like when it comes to supporting terrorists organisations. Both ISIS and Al-Qaeda are sunni muslim terrorist organisations and both have caused more damage to the west than any of the above. Who is supporting and funding these? And why are they attacking places like Moscow? But I'm meant to believe Iran is the biggest threat to world peace. Not buying it. Iran's position on Isreal is to eradicate it and is engaged an on-going proxy war to that end. They may not be a major threat to the the West but they certainly are a threat to Israel. Do you think the West should stop supporting Isreal's right to exist and let Iran achieve it's goal of eradicating it? If not what do think the West should do?
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 15, 2024 16:01:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 15, 2024 16:01:25 GMT
Was only a matter of time until the Saudis got involved. Another country which has used starvation to kill innocent children in recent years. But Iran is allegedly the threat. How much blood does Iran have on its hands in recent years? Quite a lot given that they openly fund terrorist regimes and they have an awful human rights record of their own: “Security forces repressed widespread protests that erupted across the country in September 2022 with unlawful killing, torture, sexually assault, and enforced disappearances of protestors, including women and children, as part of a pattern of serious violations. Human rights groups are investigating the reported deaths of approximately 500 protestors, including at least 68 children. In the majority of cases, security forces reportedly shot the victims using various types of bullets.” www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/iranThey are an awful regime. Saudi are just using Israel here as an extra to their sports washing efforts to repaint themselves as a decent country. They aren’t. They suck as well. The Middle East just consists of a bunch of tossers that can’t play well with others while countries like the US and UK bet on the winner. It’s like a hobo fight sponsored by arrogant rich kids. Saudi Arabia is far from squeaky clean but like it or they are part of the solution. They are prepared to recognise the state of Israel on the condition of Palestine becoming a formally recognised state - that would be a major step forward in a long term solution and is completely different to Iran's position which is not only not recognise the state of Israel but to wipe it off the map. The US and UK position is clear - they will help Israel defend itself but they will not support Israel in a military offensive against Iran and are working with the likes of Saudi Arabia to move towards a two state solution - which is going to require a change of government in Israel and the removal of Hamas as the political leadership in Gaza. It might be far off but realistically there is no other solution short of nuclear war.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 15, 2024 12:05:58 GMT
I think Cundle is a decent player for his age. He is always looking to make himself available and move the ball forward. He had a good game against Hull and I was a bit surprised he was dropped. Can see him making the starting 11 against Plymouth.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 15, 2024 8:44:03 GMT
Mr Coke - could you please stop making this thread unreadable by copy and pasting these massive articles - why not just provide a link and a short commentary? You aren't going to win any arguments based on a word count.
|
|
|
Israel
Apr 14, 2024 12:06:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 14, 2024 12:06:13 GMT
We royally fucked up by not building bridges with Iran under the last moderate regime. It's a wonderful country with friendly welcoming people and could be a fantastic trading partner for Britain and Europe. They're also a key stakeholder to potential peace in the Middle East along with a handful of others. The moment has well and truly passed unfortunately and now we're back to radical Islamic ideologues........ By the previous moderate regime to you mean the Shah of Iran? He was a deeply resented American puppet who created the conditions for the current regime. I agree there a many moderate people in Iran but it is the Iranians who need to get rid and of the current regime and if they do I'm sure we will rebuild relations.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 13, 2024 11:49:03 GMT
So the then head of the Post Office didn't know how the company he was running actually worked. So basically it wasn't my fault, I was just fucking useless at my job. It will be interesting to see how many other people being paid millions will try to wheedle out of their responsibility by claiming incompetence. BBC News - Post Office Inquiry live: I didn't realise Post Office brought its own prosecutions, says Alan Cook - BBC News www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68795663Ignorance is no defence at that level. Imagine a postie saying he didn't realise he had to sort his walk as well as deliver it too. Well yes I agree and in times past people in those roles would have had the decency to accept the responsibility that goes with those positions in society and take what is coming their way. Now they take the money, deny responsibility and blame it on their underlings.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 13, 2024 11:41:32 GMT
We made a complete mess of moving the club from the god manager structure to the Sporting Director/Head Coach structure.
How it should be done:
1 Sack god manager at the end of the season 2 Appoint permanent Sporting Director 3 Appoint Head Coach who fits the profile decided by the Sporting Director in time to prepare team for new season
What we did:
1 Sack god manager (MoN) at the start of the season 2 Appoint another god manager (Neil) who can't work with the existing squad 3 Let god manager appoint Technical Director (?) 4 Sack god manager mid season 5 Allow Technical Director to appoint Head Coach 6 Sack Technical Director 7 Appoint temporary Technical Director 8 Retain existing Head Coach and hope they see eye to eye with temporary Technical Director 8 Change the role from Technical Director to Sporting Director and appoint temporary Technical Director to the post
If you were going to script a "how not to" management training video that would be it.
I'm also not convinced that Schumacher was the right choice for the situation we are in. He may well go on to become a decent head coach but we were in a worse state than the club realised and his inexperience has been exposed. We may well survive and with a preseason his qualities might come through but for me it was a very risky decision to appoint him.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 12, 2024 17:14:47 GMT
Bit of inside information. The guy is too busy out shagging to care about his football. Totally unprofessional outside of training. When did being a professional virgin become a contractual requirement for being a professional footballer? Providing he isn't getting on the end of a cross because he's pre occupied with finishing off a blow job what exactly is the problem?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 12, 2024 16:20:05 GMT
It's all about getting a good partnership. We are missing a no nonsense, experienced leader at the back. I think Rose, McNally and Wilmott would be ok alongside someone like that. The problem is you can't perm a solid two out of the three of them - they all have mistakes in them and none of them has any real presence. The defence was woefully neglected last summer and needs rebuilding from scratch. For me that's the top priority. Yes we need a striker but you have to start building from the back. neither it the 3 should be near the first team next season McNally will more than likely go back to Burnley. Wilmott is out of favour and may well go if we find a buyer. I can see us keeping Rose and I think he could compete for a first team place alongside a proper leader. I'll stick to the view that it's a CB partnership that counts and we currently don't have a partnership that works. That doesn't mean the CBs we have can't do a job with the right partner.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 12, 2024 16:10:01 GMT
This thread isn't about "him" it's about his role as unelected head of state. Whether anyone likes or dislikes him is irrelevant. Personally I don't have anything against him - he isn't particularly awful and he isn't particularly good at anything. The issue for me is that the position he holds shouldn't exist in that form and no-one should be the unelected head is state in a modern democracy. The institution of the monarchy is ridiculous and shouldn't even exist but I don't near any ill will to Charles Windsor. You’re entitled to your opinion The title of this thread is "Abolishing the Monarchy". That isn't an opinion - that is a fact. You are entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately your opinion is irrelevant to the thread.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 12, 2024 12:38:48 GMT
Of course anyone in his Privileged position would obviously exempt themselves from regulations ordinary Citizens are subject too. The hypocrisy is from those on here who Champion Charlie as an Environmentalist, of course Charlie is also a hypocrite, but I think that was already generally understood “Champions” a bit strong I just find it hard to get all het up about him as he’s just a rich bloke that’s fortunate enough (if you can call it that as he’ll never lead a normal life) to have been born into the royal family. A lot of the comments I make are just a bit of sport because I’m just not that bothered about him and don’t understand all the hate and anger about someone or a family that no one’s ever met just for a bit of political posturing and to demonstrate how we’re “men of the people.” I just can’t get the hate towards him that’s all. People love to snipe at him because he’s privileged but will actively defend people who riot on the streets or attack the police but for no other reason than that in there eyes they’re fighting “the system” regardless of how they do it. Happy to condone / champion people for smashing up the streets but get all hot under the collar because someone’s privileged and lives a fortunate life in an institution that’s being existing for many years. Of course the countries in a mess due to the Tories and not because of the Royal family. Maybe the answers to do volunteering and work on a community scheme where you can really make a difference it’s far more satisfying than venting on a forum. This thread isn't about "him" it's about his role as unelected head of state. Whether anyone likes or dislikes him is irrelevant. Personally I don't have anything against him - he isn't particularly awful and he isn't particularly good at anything. The issue for me is that the position he holds shouldn't exist in that form and no-one should be the unelected head is state in a modern democracy. The institution of the monarchy is ridiculous and shouldn't even exist but I don't near any ill will to Charles Windsor.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 12, 2024 10:10:18 GMT
So the then head of the Post Office didn't know how the company he was running actually worked. So basically it wasn't my fault, I was just fucking useless at my job. It will be interesting to see how many other people being paid millions will try to wheedle out of their responsibility by claiming incompetence. BBC News - Post Office Inquiry live: I didn't realise Post Office brought its own prosecutions, says Alan Cook - BBC News www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68795663
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 12, 2024 9:58:08 GMT
I thought it was the Tory/LibDem coalition that introduced fees. It was certainly the Labour party that dismantled training schools and colleges to divert students to universities. That's why when I discuss with younger people the notion that they have that anyone over 40 destroyed their future I remind them that it was those post war people who put things in place for their futures only to have it taken away by those in more modern politics. It was Labour who introduced tuition fees. The Lib Dems had a manifesto pledge to scrap them but ditched it in coalition with the Tories. The number of people going on to post 16 education post war was tiny. It increased massively in the 90s under Labour. In terms of vocational education the biggest impact wasn't education policy, it was the knock on effects of Thatcher's deindustrialization in the 80s. Demand for practical skills plummeted and the remaining big industries stopped funding high quality apprenticeships and dumped it on the state. I think converting the poly's to universities was a mistake but to say it's the recent generation who have reduced opportunities for young people is stretching it - more young people are going into some form of post 16 education than ever before. The problem the FE colleges have is funding and the fact that the higher quality students are going to university and a good number of their students aren't really good enough to do courses like engineering and don't want to be there. I agree more money needs to go into FE but the bigger challenge is changing the focus of the economy so that the those jobs are available and getting the whole of society to respect and value practical skills. In countries like Germany and France those skills are valued - our class system means those skills continue to be looked down upon.
|
|