|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 31, 2024 22:37:43 GMT
Spain showing a moral compass at least ...
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 31, 2024 23:14:52 GMT
Spain showing a moral compass at least ... There are others who have Integrity and a moral🧠www.trtworld.com/middle-east/norway-ireland-support-unrwa-in-defiance-of-other-western-donors-16784065Norway has welcomed the UN agency for Palestinian refugees' investigation into the alleged involvement of some of its staffers in the October 7 attacks on Israel, saying the country will continue to support Palestinians through the agency. We need to distinguish between what individuals may have done and what UNRWA stands for," Norway said. Micheál Martin (Ireland Foreign Minister) Full confidence in @unlazzarini's decision to immediately suspend @unrwa staff suspected of participation in the heinous attacks of October 7, to investigate thoroughly and show zero tolerance on terror. 🇮🇪 has no plans to suspend funding for UNRWA’s vital Gaza work. (1/2) · UNRWA’s 13,000 employees provide life saving assistance to 2.3m people and at incredible personal cost - with over 100 staff killed in last 4 months. 🇮🇪 provided @unrwa €18m in 2023 and will continue our support in 2024 (2/2)
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 1, 2024 10:00:44 GMT
The UK government has previously supported the idea of the two state solution and you are right that hasn't changed. What Cameron said is that the UK government could formally recognise a Palestinian state before a peace accord has been reached. That is new and No 10 haven't slapped Cameron down or back tracked on that statement. It's basically saying the UK would help bring about a two state solution whether Israel like it or not. That's a step forward in terms of what the UK government are prepared to do bring it about. I think you're seeing something that isn't there mate. They've said that the government's position has NOT changed, ergo they do not support what Cameron has said, it can't be both. And then they went on to lie about what he meant, he wasn't merely reiterating their established commitment to a two state solution, he was saying something much more fundamental and different from that previously established position. Indeed they don't even need to slap Cameron down or back track on what he said because they've already explained to you, that what you thought he meant, isn't actually what he meant. It's straightforward gaslighting. That's a very paranoid reading of what was said and only an idiot would be gaslighted by what the government said even if that was the intent. What Cameron said is a matter of record and the government have not contradicted him. My reading is that the government has always backed a two state solution and Cameron was explaining what that meant in practice. The government spokesman is right in that the policy hasn't changed. However this is the first time to my knowledge that a member of government has explicitly stated that as a practical step to implementing that policy they would consider recognising a Palestinian state in the UN before a peace agreement has been agreed. No 10 have not retracted Cameron's words on this so they stand as the official government position on how they might bring about a two state solution. It isn't a change of policy it is setting out a new approach to achieve the goals of that policy I'm not the one reading anything into the statements - what I have done is just provide a straight factual reading of what was said. It is you who are spinning the words to claim that the statements aren't what they are and that the government is gaslighting the public without a shred of evidence to support your claim. You reading is based entirely on your prejudices against the government. I'm choosing not to be cynical despite my political inclinations whereas you are choosing to take a cynical view based on your political inclinations.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 1, 2024 10:23:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 1, 2024 10:23:44 GMT
I really don't see a two state solution being brought about by trade sanctions. Either the Isreali's will have to elect a government that are willing to support the solution or the UN will have to unilaterally recognise Palestine as a state (which Cameron has said the UK government would support) and if Israel refuse to play ball there will have to be a military intervention to make it happen in the form of a UN backed peace keeping force. And if it goes that far the UK would have to contribute to any military action. None of which is likely to happen, but if it does, no one will be left alive in Gaza for it to matter. Somehow though, I don’t see Biden, Trump, Sunak or Starmer backing a ‘military intervention’ in Israel. If the UK, US etc decided to stop selling them weapons and countries started making it more and more expensive for them to live if they carry on murdering Gazans, maybe they’ll stop sooner rather than later? Stopping the fighting in Gaza does nothing to resolve the underlying situation. The conditions for a future conflict would remain and it would kick off again. If the Isreali's are denied weapons they would simply starve the Gazans to death. There needs to be a long term solution and the only two options I can see are power sharing in a unified Isreal or a two state solution. Nobody appears to believe power sharing would work and there is a consensus crystallizing around a two state solution. For this to happen either the Israeli government would have to accept it (and that would require a change of government) or they would have to be forced to accept by military action. Anybody thinking through what the establishment of a two state solution would mean in practice would have to come to this conclusion and would have to be thinking in those terms for the solution to have any chance of success. There are some Palestinians and some Isreali's willing to commit atrocities against each other and if a peaceful solution cannot be found amongst themselves some form of external military intervention is pretty much inevitable. The US and UK committed troops to establish the state of Isreal (my partner's father fought in Palestine to bring that about) it is by no means unthinkable that US and UK troops wouldn't be deployed to establish a state for Palestinians. In fact we have been enablers in the current situation and push comes to shove we owe that to the Palestinian people.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 1, 2024 11:25:29 GMT
None of which is likely to happen, but if it does, no one will be left alive in Gaza for it to matter. Somehow though, I don’t see Biden, Trump, Sunak or Starmer backing a ‘military intervention’ in Israel. If the UK, US etc decided to stop selling them weapons and countries started making it more and more expensive for them to live if they carry on murdering Gazans, maybe they’ll stop sooner rather than later? Stopping the fighting in Gaza does nothing to resolve the underlying situation. The conditions for a future conflict would remain and it would kick off again. If the Isreali's are denied weapons they would simply starve the Gazans to death. There needs to be a long term solution and the only two options I can see are power sharing in a unified Isreal or a two state solution. Nobody appears to believe power sharing would work and there is a consensus crystallizing around a two state solution. For this to happen either the Israeli government would have to accept it (and that would require a change of government) or they would have to be forced to accept by military action. Anybody thinking through what the establishment of a two state solution would mean in practice would have to come to this conclusion and would have to be thinking in those terms for the solution to have any chance of success. There are some Palestinians and some Isreali's willing to commit atrocities against each other and if a peaceful solution cannot be found amongst themselves some form of external military intervention is pretty much inevitable. The US and UK committed troops to establish the state of Isreal (my partner's father fought in Palestine to bring that about) it is by no means unthinkable that US and UK troops wouldn't be deployed to establish a state for Palestinians. In fact we have been enablers in the current situation and push comes to shove we owe that to the Palestinian people. What you say may/could/should happen is entirely possible but in reality impracticable The closest conflict we have witnessed in this part of the World is Northern Ireland Another Statelet artificially created by GB to ensure a majority population of one Tribe over the other (that didn't last as the minority population grew much faster) and the treatment of the minority as second class Citizens in a form of Apartheid Since inception of the Statelet there had been Terrorist incidents by the Minority to further its Political aims. The large scale conflict erupted late 1960s not from Political Ideology but from Peaceful Demonstrations for equal rights. The GB Government chose to ignore the situation and this created a vacuum and an opportunity for the gunmen to enter. For the next 30 years both sides fought each other to a standstill. GB chose not to up the weaponry it had available which would have resulted in massive collateral casualties in the Civilian population and outrage from the World particularly the US Israel has no such qualms about using its vastly superior weaponry which has been primarily supplied by US. The population growth between Israel and Palestine is also of major concern as if left unchecked in a relatively short period the sheer numbers of Palestinians would dwarf Israel's population and lessen the advantage of military equipment So every now and then Israel perform a cull either by extermination or banishment, either is acceptable. The Jewish psyche is rooted in thousands of years ago and the scriptures prophecy must be fulfilled at any cost. It is of strategic importance to US and the West generally to have a friendly allay surrounded by Countries many of whom would obliterate the West given an opportunity. They also have OIL While these factors persist the West will utter platitudes and call for restraint. Israel will be told by the US when it has overstepped the mark and the bloodletting will pause for a while. Hamas or some other organisation will regroup and fire off a few ineffectual rockets giving Israel the opportunity for further excesses. The West is not going to impose and Police an equitable solution Until the Israeli people come to the realisation that their security is best served by electing leaders that are prepared to work towards an equitable solution, nothing will change
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 1, 2024 12:55:59 GMT
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 1, 2024 12:55:59 GMT
I think you're seeing something that isn't there mate. They've said that the government's position has NOT changed, ergo they do not support what Cameron has said, it can't be both. And then they went on to lie about what he meant, he wasn't merely reiterating their established commitment to a two state solution, he was saying something much more fundamental and different from that previously established position. Indeed they don't even need to slap Cameron down or back track on what he said because they've already explained to you, that what you thought he meant, isn't actually what he meant. It's straightforward gaslighting. That's a very paranoid reading of what was said and only an idiot would be gaslighted by what the government said even if that was the intent. What Cameron said is a matter of record and the government have not contradicted him. My reading is that the government has always backed a two state solution and Cameron was explaining what that meant in practice. The government spokesman is right in that the policy hasn't changed. However this is the first time to my knowledge that a member of government has explicitly stated that as a practical step to implementing that policy they would consider recognising a Palestinian state in the UN before a peace agreement has been agreed. No 10 have not retracted Cameron's words on this so they stand as the official government position on how they might bring about a two state solution. It isn't a change of policy it is setting out a new approach to achieve the goals of that policy I'm not the one reading anything into the statements - what I have done is just provide a straight factual reading of what was said. It is you who are spinning the words to claim that the statements aren't what they are and that the government is gaslighting the public without a shred of evidence to support your claim. You reading is based entirely on your prejudices against the government. I'm choosing not to be cynical despite my political inclinations whereas you are choosing to take a cynical view based on your political inclinations.
It's not paranoid at all and yes indeed, plenty of idiots are do get gaslighted by what the government say.
You think you have provided a straight factual reading of what was said, I think you're spinning it to mean something that it doesn't, I think it's a personal opinion of Cameron's and nothing more.
Originally you were claiming it was a huge deal (it would have been) but now you're claiming it's not actually a change of policy but a new *approach*, you can't have it both ways and likewise, you yourself haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your claim.
Your last two sentences are just personal nonsense, which is there is absolutely no need for.
I suspect we won't now be hearing about the UK unilaterally acknowledging Palestine's right to exist for a very, very long time (if at all), you can bookmark this post for future reference, if you like.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 1, 2024 13:12:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 1, 2024 13:12:05 GMT
Stopping the fighting in Gaza does nothing to resolve the underlying situation. The conditions for a future conflict would remain and it would kick off again. If the Isreali's are denied weapons they would simply starve the Gazans to death. There needs to be a long term solution and the only two options I can see are power sharing in a unified Isreal or a two state solution. Nobody appears to believe power sharing would work and there is a consensus crystallizing around a two state solution. For this to happen either the Israeli government would have to accept it (and that would require a change of government) or they would have to be forced to accept by military action. Anybody thinking through what the establishment of a two state solution would mean in practice would have to come to this conclusion and would have to be thinking in those terms for the solution to have any chance of success. There are some Palestinians and some Isreali's willing to commit atrocities against each other and if a peaceful solution cannot be found amongst themselves some form of external military intervention is pretty much inevitable. The US and UK committed troops to establish the state of Isreal (my partner's father fought in Palestine to bring that about) it is by no means unthinkable that US and UK troops wouldn't be deployed to establish a state for Palestinians. In fact we have been enablers in the current situation and push comes to shove we owe that to the Palestinian people. What you say may/could/should happen is entirely possible but in reality impracticable The closest conflict we have witnessed in this part of the World is Northern Ireland Another Statelet artificially created by GB to ensure a majority population of one Tribe over the other (that didn't last as the minority population grew much faster) and the treatment of the minority as second class Citizens in a form of Apartheid Since inception of the Statelet there had been Terrorist incidents by the Minority to further its Political aims. The large scale conflict erupted late 1960s not from Political Ideology but from Peaceful Demonstrations for equal rights. The GB Government chose to ignore the situation and this created a vacuum and an opportunity for the gunmen to enter. For the next 30 years both sides fought each other to a standstill. GB chose not to up the weaponry it had available which would have resulted in massive collateral casualties in the Civilian population and outrage from the World particularly the US Israel has no such qualms about using its vastly superior weaponry which has been primarily supplied by US. The population growth between Israel and Palestine is also of major concern as if left unchecked in a relatively short period the sheer numbers of Palestinians would dwarf Israel's population and lessen the advantage of military equipment So every now and then Israel perform a cull either by extermination or banishment, either is acceptable. The Jewish psyche is rooted in thousands of years ago and the scriptures prophecy must be fulfilled at any cost. It is of strategic importance to US and the West generally to have a friendly allay surrounded by Countries many of whom would obliterate the West given an opportunity. They also have OIL While these factors persist the West will utter platitudes and call for restraint. Israel will be told by the US when it has overstepped the mark and the bloodletting will pause for a while. Hamas or some other organisation will regroup and fire off a few ineffectual rockets giving Israel the opportunity for further excesses. The West is not going to impose and Police an equitable solution Until the Israeli people come to the realisation that their security is best served by electing leaders that are prepared to work towards an equitable solution, nothing will change I have argued that the preferred solution is one agreed between the protagonists but that is going to require a change of leadership for both the Isreali and Palestinian people. However your solution just stops there and offers nothing but the prospect of ongoing slaughter if there isn't a change of heart by the existing leaders (and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that might happen) or a change of leadership (which is more likely but still looks like a remote possibility). Basically what you are proposing is pure wishful thinking and you are not addressing the most likely scenario - that the Isreali and Palestinian leadership refuse to come to a peaceful solution. For a plan to have any chance of succeeding it has to cater for all of the things that are likely to happen not just the one thing you want to happen. I'm not arguing that a military intervention is the preferred solution but if the UK and the US are serious about helping establish a long term peaceful solution it cannot be ruled out. A single state solution is only possible if both parties agree - it can't be imposed from outside. So if the parties can't agree the only option is a two state solution and a military intervention could help facilitate it. In fact if the Isreali and Palestinian leadership are unwilling to bring it about the only way of making it happen would be a military intervention. You might be right about this being unlikely but I actually think if the current situation continues it will be something that the UK and the US will consider and I suspect behind the scenes they will be putting pressure on the Isreali's by raising this as a real possibility. Cameron stating publicly that the UK would consider formally recognising Palestine in the UN before a peace agreement has been signed is the first indication of the west's break from providing Isreal with unconditional support for there actions and it would pave the way for a UN sanctioned military intervention in the region. Nobody wants a military intervention but in the face of intransigence by the Isreali and Palestinian leadership it is the only hope for the innocent Palestinian and Isreali citizens caught up in this shit show. Wishful thinking and ongoing outrage on social media is going to achieve fuck all no matter how well meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 1, 2024 13:41:18 GMT
None of which is likely to happen, but if it does, no one will be left alive in Gaza for it to matter. Somehow though, I don’t see Biden, Trump, Sunak or Starmer backing a ‘military intervention’ in Israel. If the UK, US etc decided to stop selling them weapons and countries started making it more and more expensive for them to live if they carry on murdering Gazans, maybe they’ll stop sooner rather than later? The US and UK committed troops to establish the state of Isreal (my partner's father fought in Palestine to bring that about) it is by no means unthinkable that US and UK troops wouldn't be deployed to establish a state for Palestinians.
1. The first half of your sentence is simply untrue. The Zionists led a terrorist campaign against the British (you may want to look up the King David Hotel massacre) and David Ben-Gurion ultimately became Israel's first prime minister, the leader of the terrorists Menachem Begin would also go on to become an Israeli PM. As for the US committing troops to establish the state of Israel, I really have no idea what you're referring to.
2. The second half of your sentence absolutely is completely unthinkable. There is no way in the world you will see US and UK troops deployed in Israel to establish a state for the Palestinians. I haven't heard of such an idea before, anywhere and I'm absolutely certain that I wouldn't find an example of one, if I looked. It's just a ridiculous suggestion.
As civillestokie has said, there would have to be a ginormous shift in US and UK foreign policy, resulting in huge pressure, both politically and economically being placed on Israel to adhere to a UN recognized two state solution. Take away their military funding and place them under strict economic sanctions and they would soon be forced to recognise international law. But getting the US and the UK to have such a monumental change in policy, is in itself highly unlikely, a military intervention is simply for the birds.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 1, 2024 14:20:55 GMT
What you say may/could/should happen is entirely possible but in reality impracticable The closest conflict we have witnessed in this part of the World is Northern Ireland Another Statelet artificially created by GB to ensure a majority population of one Tribe over the other (that didn't last as the minority population grew much faster) and the treatment of the minority as second class Citizens in a form of Apartheid Since inception of the Statelet there had been Terrorist incidents by the Minority to further its Political aims. The large scale conflict erupted late 1960s not from Political Ideology but from Peaceful Demonstrations for equal rights. The GB Government chose to ignore the situation and this created a vacuum and an opportunity for the gunmen to enter. For the next 30 years both sides fought each other to a standstill. GB chose not to up the weaponry it had available which would have resulted in massive collateral casualties in the Civilian population and outrage from the World particularly the US Israel has no such qualms about using its vastly superior weaponry which has been primarily supplied by US. The population growth between Israel and Palestine is also of major concern as if left unchecked in a relatively short period the sheer numbers of Palestinians would dwarf Israel's population and lessen the advantage of military equipment So every now and then Israel perform a cull either by extermination or banishment, either is acceptable. The Jewish psyche is rooted in thousands of years ago and the scriptures prophecy must be fulfilled at any cost. It is of strategic importance to US and the West generally to have a friendly allay surrounded by Countries many of whom would obliterate the West given an opportunity. They also have OIL While these factors persist the West will utter platitudes and call for restraint. Israel will be told by the US when it has overstepped the mark and the bloodletting will pause for a while. Hamas or some other organisation will regroup and fire off a few ineffectual rockets giving Israel the opportunity for further excesses. The West is not going to impose and Police an equitable solution Until the Israeli people come to the realisation that their security is best served by electing leaders that are prepared to work towards an equitable solution, nothing will change I have argued that the preferred solution is one agreed between the protagonists but that is going to require a change of leadership for both the Isreali and Palestinian people. However your solution just stops there and offers nothing but the prospect of ongoing slaughter if there isn't a change of heart by the existing leaders (and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that might happen) or a change of leadership (which is more likely but still looks like a remote possibility). Basically what you are proposing is pure wishful thinking and you are not addressing the most likely scenario - that the Isreali and Palestinian leadership refuse to come to a peaceful solution. For a plan to have any chance of succeeding it has to cater for all of the things that are likely to happen not just the one thing you want to happen. I'm not arguing that a military intervention is the preferred solution but if the UK and the US are serious about helping establish a long term peaceful solution it cannot be ruled out. A single state solution is only possible if both parties agree - it can't be imposed from outside. So if the parties can't agree the only option is a two state solution and a military intervention could help facilitate it. In fact if the Isreali and Palestinian leadership are unwilling to bring it about the only way of making it happen would be a military intervention. You might be right about this being unlikely but I actually think if the current situation continues it will be something that the UK and the US will consider and I suspect behind the scenes they will be putting pressure on the Isreali's by raising this as a real possibility. Cameron stating publicly that the UK would consider formally recognising Palestine in the UN before a peace agreement has been signed is the first indication of the west's break from providing Isreal with unconditional support for there actions and it would pave the way for a UN sanctioned military intervention in the region. Nobody wants a military intervention but in the face of intransigence by the Isreali and Palestinian leadership it is the only hope for the innocent Palestinian and Isreali citizens caught up in this shit show. Wishful thinking and ongoing outrage on social media is going to achieve fuck all no matter how well meaning. The only thing that will substantially change the dial is if the people of Israel and Palestine elect Leadership that are committed to pursuing an equitable peaceful one/two State of coexistence. Even then there will be a substantial number on both sides who will oppose with force. That is a point where Blue Helmets will be useful The current Israeli and Hamas Leadership are not going to change their positions The Majority of Israeli Citizens lives have been unhindered by the current conflict, ironically if Hamas were more successful it would focus Israeli' Citizens minds on a more permanent solution. Israeli' Citizens confidence was shattered by events of 7 October they have turned their anger towards Netanyahu who had assured them they were safe. But it has also hardened against Palestinians who are indistinguishable from Hamas. It is you who is Wishful Thinking that either US or UK will engage in imposing a Military Solution IT WILL NOT HAPPEN The best that can be expected is that US and to some degree Israeli Citizens put pressure on Netanyahu and will see a lull in the slaughter. The people of Gaza will still be living in an Open Prison now reduced to rubble and the people in the West Bank will continue to have their land confiscated and if they don't piss off they will be shot. The Youths should remember they are living in a Glass house and not throw stones or they will be shot or sent to prison The Palestinians are Friendless and a Pawn in a Geo-Political Theatre. History will judge the Protagonists harshly as well as those that stood idly by. It won't change the outcome nor did it in Nazi Germany and maybe we'll hear the phrase "Never Again" being repeated
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 1, 2024 19:05:42 GMT
It's breaking all over Twitter, that Qatar has brokered a ceasefire, not sure how legitimate the reports are, or what the details are but fingers crossed ...
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Feb 1, 2024 19:26:10 GMT
It's breaking all over Twitter, that Qatar has brokered a ceasefire, not sure how legitimate the reports are, or what the details are but fingers crossed ... Fingers crossed 🤞 Maybe if we leave it in Qatars hands they can sort out a twi state solution. Showed the US and UK how to act through this.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 1, 2024 21:11:46 GMT
It seems the tide is starting to turn, let's hope its the beginning of a domino effect! 🤞
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 1, 2024 21:59:34 GMT
It's breaking all over Twitter, that Qatar has brokered a ceasefire, not sure how legitimate the reports are, or what the details are but fingers crossed ... Excellent news if true for Palestinian Civilians but the cynic in me says US has told Israel to cool it. The ICJ Interim decision has emboldened some Western Countries to break cover One can only hope that the ceasefire includes negotiations towards a more lasting peace under International auspices Undoubtedly this deal was Brokered in talks last week in Paris between representatives of Qatar, Egypt, Israel and US
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Feb 1, 2024 22:16:28 GMT
Biden has put sanctions on 4 Settlers .This is the turning point for Israel.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 1, 2024 23:41:39 GMT
And another ...
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 2, 2024 7:45:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 2, 2024 7:45:09 GMT
That's a very paranoid reading of what was said and only an idiot would be gaslighted by what the government said even if that was the intent. What Cameron said is a matter of record and the government have not contradicted him. My reading is that the government has always backed a two state solution and Cameron was explaining what that meant in practice. The government spokesman is right in that the policy hasn't changed. However this is the first time to my knowledge that a member of government has explicitly stated that as a practical step to implementing that policy they would consider recognising a Palestinian state in the UN before a peace agreement has been agreed. No 10 have not retracted Cameron's words on this so they stand as the official government position on how they might bring about a two state solution. It isn't a change of policy it is setting out a new approach to achieve the goals of that policy I'm not the one reading anything into the statements - what I have done is just provide a straight factual reading of what was said. It is you who are spinning the words to claim that the statements aren't what they are and that the government is gaslighting the public without a shred of evidence to support your claim. You reading is based entirely on your prejudices against the government. I'm choosing not to be cynical despite my political inclinations whereas you are choosing to take a cynical view based on your political inclinations. It's not paranoid at all and yes indeed, plenty of idiots are do get gaslighted by what the government say.
You think you have provided a straight factual reading of what was said, I think you're spinning it to mean something that it doesn't, I think it's a personal opinion of Cameron's and nothing more. Originally you were claiming it was a huge deal (it would have been) but now you're claiming it's not actually a change of policy but a new *approach*, you can't have it both ways and likewise, you yourself haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your claim. Your last two sentences are just personal nonsense, which is there is absolutely no need for. I suspect we won't now be hearing about the UK unilaterally acknowledging Palestine's right to exist for a very, very long time (if at all), you can bookmark this post for future reference, if you like. The government position before Cameron made his public statement in his official capacity as Foreign Secretary was that it supported a two state solution. The official government position after Cameron made his public statement in his official capacity as Foreign Secretary was that it supported a two state solution AND that it would be prepared to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN BEFORE a peace agreement is reached. No 10 subsequently confirmed that Cameron in his capacity as Foreign Secretary was stating the official government position. This is a big deal and that is a factual representation of the situation supported by the news reports I provided. It is you who have chosen to spin the facts to claim that the position has not changed (it has) and that the public are being gas lighted. You have absolutely no evidence to support you claim. In fact what the government said isn't in any way,shape or form "gas lighting". They haven't twisted Cameron's words or denied he said what he said - they confirmed what he said was consistent with the governments position. To gas light someone you have to provide some gas. There isn't any - you've made it up. Whether the government follow up on this is another matter and I'm happy to bookmark this page and if the situation in Gaza gets worse and they don't follow up on their words then I'll be first in line to berate them for lying about their intentions. However I choose to believe what they say on this matter because if nothing else it offers a glimmer of hope. In all your well meaning posts you have offered absolutely nothing in the way of a solution to the situation. At least Cameron is sticking his neck out and proposing a way forward - it's way more constructive than all the ineffectual hand wringing on here.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 2, 2024 12:48:33 GMT
It's not paranoid at all and yes indeed, plenty of idiots are do get gaslighted by what the government say.
You think you have provided a straight factual reading of what was said, I think you're spinning it to mean something that it doesn't, I think it's a personal opinion of Cameron's and nothing more. Originally you were claiming it was a huge deal (it would have been) but now you're claiming it's not actually a change of policy but a new *approach*, you can't have it both ways and likewise, you yourself haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your claim. Your last two sentences are just personal nonsense, which is there is absolutely no need for. I suspect we won't now be hearing about the UK unilaterally acknowledging Palestine's right to exist for a very, very long time (if at all), you can bookmark this post for future reference, if you like. The official government position after Cameron made his public statement in his official capacity as Foreign Secretary was that it supported a two state solution AND that it would be prepared to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN BEFORE a peace agreement is reached. No 10 subsequently confirmed that Cameron in his capacity as Foreign Secretary was stating the official government position. That simply isn't true, you're the one who is making things up mate. The Government said that there had been NO change in their position in regarding a two state solution, there was absolutely NOTHING in their statement about recognising Palestine BEFORE (your caps) a peace agreement is reached (which as you say would have been a huge deal if they had). I tell you what, why don't you post a link to where the Government say, what you claim they say and I'll apologise to you. That's fair isn't it? Oh and you still haven't come back to me on your claim that UK and US troops were deployed in the creation of the State of Israel.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 2, 2024 23:18:11 GMT
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 3, 2024 0:21:02 GMT
Post by wannabee on Feb 3, 2024 0:21:02 GMT
Do you need to preface this with "According to Palestinian Heath Ministry" to satisfy pedants Obviously I'm not going to "like" your post, nor would I expect you'd want me to.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 3, 2024 7:49:42 GMT
Post by satoshi on Feb 3, 2024 7:49:42 GMT
It’s funny how the left believe they’re the liberal good guys on the right side of history, as they watch Biden bomb the fuck out of the middle east.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Feb 3, 2024 8:15:33 GMT
It’s funny how the left believe they’re the liberal good guys on the right side of history, as they watch Biden bomb the fuck out of the middle east. Biden ain't left wing, he's right wing just not as far right as Trump.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 3, 2024 8:18:18 GMT
Post by satoshi on Feb 3, 2024 8:18:18 GMT
It’s funny how the left believe they’re the liberal good guys on the right side of history, as they watch Biden bomb the fuck out of the middle east. Biden ain't left wing, he's right wing just not as far right as Trump. Over his career, Biden has generally been regarded as belonging to the mainstream of the Democratic Party.[5][6] Biden has been described as center[7][8][9] to center-left[10] and has described himself as the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Feb 3, 2024 8:50:21 GMT
It’s funny how the left believe they’re the liberal good guys on the right side of history, as they watch Biden bomb the fuck out of the middle east. Biden ain't left wing, he's right wing just not as far right as Trump. He is slightly left of centre for America which would probably put him as a One Nation Tory over here.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 3, 2024 9:09:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by thisisouryear on Feb 3, 2024 9:09:54 GMT
Biden ain't left wing, he's right wing just not as far right as Trump. Over his career, Biden has generally been regarded as belonging to the mainstream of the Democratic Party.[5][6] Biden has been described as center[7][8][9] to center-left[10] and has described himself as the latter. He's pro war, pro guns it hardly screams left wing.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 3, 2024 9:21:07 GMT
Post by satoshi on Feb 3, 2024 9:21:07 GMT
Over his career, Biden has generally been regarded as belonging to the mainstream of the Democratic Party.[5][6] Biden has been described as center[7][8][9] to center-left[10] and has described himself as the latter. He's pro war, pro guns it hardly screams left wing. Let’s ignore him being leader of the democrats. You’ll be saying Tony Blair is right wing next.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 3, 2024 12:13:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2024 12:13:30 GMT
He's pro war, pro guns it hardly screams left wing. Let’s ignore him being leader of the democrats. You’ll be saying Tony Blair is right wing next. Most of the Democrats in the U.S. hold views that are quite similar to the Tory’s around 2010. Overall, US politics is shifted more to the right than UK politics. It was inevitable that Biden’s administration would end up retaliating to 3 armed forces deaths by killing civilians. It’s also inevitable that the U.S. media will all pat themselves on the back and pretend that it’s an acceptable loss, being quite happy in the idea that if they are not American, they are not human.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 4, 2024 2:29:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by musik on Feb 4, 2024 2:29:26 GMT
On Swedish tv the week before last, some journalists debating if and why Israel would participate in the Eurovision 2024 - if Russia can't.
They all agreed on this: It's a huge difference. Russia invaded a nation, whereas Israel are just defending themselves. They can't go on killing innocent people though.
Israel in Eurovision or not? Discuss
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Feb 4, 2024 7:06:57 GMT
On Swedish tv the week before last, some journalists debating if and why Israel would participate in the Eurovision 2024 - if Russia can't. They all agreed on this: It's a huge difference. Russia invaded a nation, whereas Israel are just defending themselves. They can't go on killing innocent people though. Israel in Eurovision or not? Discuss There was a sport and cultural boycott of apartheid South Africa. Israel is a state that practices apartheid. If you believe it was right and ultimately effective for one, then it must be applied to all.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 5, 2024 12:33:56 GMT
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 5, 2024 12:33:56 GMT
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 5, 2024 12:38:34 GMT
Post by Eggybread on Feb 5, 2024 12:38:34 GMT
On Swedish tv the week before last, some journalists debating if and why Israel would participate in the Eurovision 2024 - if Russia can't. They all agreed on this: It's a huge difference. Russia invaded a nation, whereas Israel are just defending themselves. They can't go on killing innocent people though. Israel in Eurovision or not? Discuss It isnt in Europe and never has been so they shouldnt be in it anyway.
|
|