|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 7:10:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 5, 2024 7:10:54 GMT
The full Wikipedia quote is below....... "In 2014, Porter attended an anti-Zionist conference in Tehran, New Horizons, which was reported to have been a platform for antisemitism and Holocaust denial. Porter told BuzzFeed News that he would not have attended the conference if he had known the extremist views of other conference participants." Of course he did…… …it’s not as if he didn’t know the topics up for discussion at the conference before he got there included issues such as "Mossad's Role in the 9/11 Coup d'Etat" and "The Israeli Lobby vs. the U.S. National Interest (especially as it relates to Middle East Policy)," according to the conference website. Remember to be careful where you get your information from. I was merely extended the quote you got your info from fella……
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2024 8:39:30 GMT
Certainly no shortage of missiles but Iran and their proxies don't seem able to land even one. It may be 'tit for tat' in terms of sending missiles but while Palestine and increasing the Lebanon have been shelled in to the dark ages life in Tel Aviv is pretty much as you were. It's a complete no contest. It's not a war, its a slaughter. The satellite guy I linked above thinks Iran can get missiles through, just that they're inaccurate. So they could probably do stuff like hit power stations, army bases or civilians. Could be the last attack was to make that clear? I don't see the end point if both sides keep escalating though. I've tried unsuccessfully several times to discuss endpoints with little success. Fot what it's worth my take is: 1 The only long term political solution on the table to the Gaza situation is a two state solution which is backed by the US, the UK, the UN and I'd being actively pursued by actors in the area such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 2 The current Isreali government isn't going to accept a two state solution and no government is going to accept a Hamas led Palestine. For this to happen there will have to a change of government and the people of Gaza will have to ditch Hamas and their representatives. 3 In terms of the broader situation most countries in the area accept Isreals right to exist. The issue is the current regime in Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah. A two state solution might ease tensions but while the likes of the Iran regime and Hezbollah are committed to the eradication of the state of Isreal there isn't a solution to the broader problem. There has to be a regime change in Iran (which would be a good thing for other reasons, not least the position of women in Iran) and for Hezbollah to be disbanded or neutralised as a threat - which would actually be welcomed by many in Lebanon. That's my take and yes it all looks rather a long way off but I don't see any other solutions on the table unless I'm missing something.
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 9:09:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 5, 2024 9:09:20 GMT
The satellite guy I linked above thinks Iran can get missiles through, just that they're inaccurate. So they could probably do stuff like hit power stations, army bases or civilians. Could be the last attack was to make that clear? I don't see the end point if both sides keep escalating though. I've tried unsuccessfully several times to discuss endpoints with little success. Fot what it's worth my take is: 1 The only long term political solution on the table to the Gaza situation is a two state solution which is backed by the US, the UK, the UN and I'd being actively pursued by actors in the area such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 2 The current Isreali government isn't going to accept a two state solution and no government is going to accept a Hamas led Palestine. For this to happen there will have to a change of government and the people of Gaza will have to ditch Hamas and their representatives. 3 In terms of the broader situation most countries in the area accept Isreals right to exist. The issue is the current regime in Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah. A two state solution might ease tensions but while the likes of the Iran regime and Hezbollah are committed to the eradication of the state of Isreal there isn't a solution to the broader problem. There has to be a regime change in Iran (which would be a good thing for other reasons, not least the position of women in Iran) and for Hezbollah to be disbanded or neutralised as a threat - which would actually be welcomed by many in Lebanon. That's my take and yes it all looks rather a long way off but I don't see any other solutions on the table unless I'm missing something. The two state solution will only work if the Palestine state is viable This requires Israel to return all land sized since the setting up of the Israeli state It simply will not happen
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 9:14:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by serpico on Oct 5, 2024 9:14:27 GMT
Of course he did…… …it’s not as if he didn’t know the topics up for discussion at the conference before he got there included issues such as "Mossad's Role in the 9/11 Coup d'Etat" and "The Israeli Lobby vs. the U.S. National Interest (especially as it relates to Middle East Policy)," according to the conference website. Remember to be careful where you get your information from. I was merely extended the quote you got your info from fella…… Interesting he left that bit out, isn’t it! … cherry picking, just like his “academic sources” do! Leaving out the caveats, now where has that been done before?!?!
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 11:00:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2024 11:00:05 GMT
I've tried unsuccessfully several times to discuss endpoints with little success. Fot what it's worth my take is: 1 The only long term political solution on the table to the Gaza situation is a two state solution which is backed by the US, the UK, the UN and I'd being actively pursued by actors in the area such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 2 The current Isreali government isn't going to accept a two state solution and no government is going to accept a Hamas led Palestine. For this to happen there will have to a change of government and the people of Gaza will have to ditch Hamas and their representatives. 3 In terms of the broader situation most countries in the area accept Isreals right to exist. The issue is the current regime in Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah. A two state solution might ease tensions but while the likes of the Iran regime and Hezbollah are committed to the eradication of the state of Isreal there isn't a solution to the broader problem. There has to be a regime change in Iran (which would be a good thing for other reasons, not least the position of women in Iran) and for Hezbollah to be disbanded or neutralised as a threat - which would actually be welcomed by many in Lebanon. That's my take and yes it all looks rather a long way off but I don't see any other solutions on the table unless I'm missing something. The two state solution will only work if the Palestine state is viable This requires Israel to return all land sized since the setting up of the Israeli state It simply will not happen If Isreal gives back all the land it has seized since it set up the Isreali state there would be no state of Isreal. By definition that is not a two state solution and nobody proposing a two state solution is suggesting that is the way to do it. Are you suggesting the Irealis just give up on Isreal as a state (which is not going to happen), the Palestinians and their supporters win the war and eradicate the state of Isreal (doubtboy given their military capability and US backing) or that the Palestinians continue to be denied statehood and just put up with being shat on by the Isrealis (which just perpetuates the problem). If none of them what are you proposing?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 5, 2024 11:06:03 GMT
The two state solution will only work if the Palestine state is viable This requires Israel to return all land sized since the setting up of the Israeli state It simply will not happen If Isreal gives back all the land it has seized since it set up the Isreali state there would be no state of Isreal. By definition that is not a two state solution and nobody proposing a two state solution is suggesting that is the way to do it. Are you suggesting the Irealis just give up on Isreal as a state (which is not going to happen), the Palestinians and their supporters win the war and eradicate the state of Isreal (doubtboy given their military capability and US backing) or that the Palestinians continue to be denied statehood and just put up with being shat on by the Isrealis (which just perpetuates the problem). If none of them what are you proposing? Move out of the occupied territories in accordance with international law. If there’s not enough space for the illegal settlers send them back to Brooklyn, Paris, London or wherever they came from……
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 5, 2024 11:26:24 GMT
The two state solution will only work if the Palestine state is viable This requires Israel to return all land sized since the setting up of the Israeli state It simply will not happen If Isreal gives back all the land it has seized since it set up the Isreali state there would be no state of Isreal. By definition that is not a two state solution and nobody proposing a two state solution is suggesting that is the way to do it. Are you suggesting the Irealis just give up on Isreal as a state (which is not going to happen), the Palestinians and their supporters win the war and eradicate the state of Isreal (doubtboy given their military capability and US backing) or that the Palestinians continue to be denied statehood and just put up with being shat on by the Isrealis (which just perpetuates the problem). If none of them what are you proposing? I’m proposing that Isreal returns to the boarders that were agreed in 1949 Thus allowing a fully functioning democratic Palestinian state That can exist in conjunction with Isreal
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 5, 2024 17:28:13 GMT
Of course he did…… …it’s not as if he didn’t know the topics up for discussion at the conference before he got there included issues such as "Mossad's Role in the 9/11 Coup d'Etat" and "The Israeli Lobby vs. the U.S. National Interest (especially as it relates to Middle East Policy)," according to the conference website. Remember to be careful where you get your information from. I was merely extended the quote you got your info from fella…… To be honest, that's how easy it was to discredit the "source" Serpico was stating as one of the best sources of information on Israel and the Middle East. Extrapolating the fact that the Buzz Feed article makes no logical sense given the chap would have known what was being talked about at that conference way before he happened to turn up does nothing for the balanced argument he wanted to make. It's not an evidential caveat Serpico omitted - given he relies on such characters as sources of evidence it merely demonstrates how much misguided rubbish people will believe.
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 18:54:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by gawa on Oct 5, 2024 18:54:25 GMT
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 19:07:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by gawa on Oct 5, 2024 19:07:49 GMT
I was merely extended the quote you got your info from fella…… To be honest, that's how easy it was to discredit the "source" Serpico was stating as one of the best sources of information on Israel and the Middle East. Extrapolating the fact that the Buzz Feed article makes no logical sense given the chap would have known what was being talked about at that conference way before he happened to turn up does nothing for the balanced argument he wanted to make. It's not an evidential caveat Serpico omitted - given he relies on such characters as sources of evidence it merely demonstrates how much misguided rubbish people will believe. You haven't succeeded in discrediting any source though have you? Many people are challenging you and nobody seems to be agreeing. Gareth Porter is a renowned award winning investigative journalist, historian and author. With the greatest respect he's a much more credible source than yourself. Why don't you critique the referenced article rather than the individual?
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 19:21:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 5, 2024 19:21:11 GMT
Give me one good reason why Starmer can't send a similar message ...
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 19:52:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 5, 2024 19:52:15 GMT
I was merely extended the quote you got your info from fella…… To be honest, that's how easy it was to discredit the "source" Serpico was stating as one of the best sources of information on Israel and the Middle East. Extrapolating the fact that the Buzz Feed article makes no logical sense given the chap would have known what was being talked about at that conference way before he happened to turn up does nothing for the balanced argument he wanted to make. It's not an evidential caveat Serpico omitted - given he relies on such characters as sources of evidence it merely demonstrates how much misguided rubbish people will believe. You’ve Googled his name and cherry picked part of a quote from Wikipedia you’ve discredited nothing in fairness. I have very little of knowledge of the person in question, I suspect you don’t either…..
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 5, 2024 20:02:55 GMT
To be honest, that's how easy it was to discredit the "source" Serpico was stating as one of the best sources of information on Israel and the Middle East. Extrapolating the fact that the Buzz Feed article makes no logical sense given the chap would have known what was being talked about at that conference way before he happened to turn up does nothing for the balanced argument he wanted to make. It's not an evidential caveat Serpico omitted - given he relies on such characters as sources of evidence it merely demonstrates how much misguided rubbish people will believe. You haven't succeeded in discrediting any source though have you? Many people are challenging you and nobody seems to be agreeing. Gareth Porter is a renowned award winning investigative journalist, historian and author. With the greatest respect he's a much more credible source than yourself. Why don't you critique the referenced article rather than the individual? I just provided a critique of the inherent bias Porter has. It's not for me to consider him discredited, as such. The point here is that Porter can certainly be replied upon to give an anti-Israeli slant on things - and that is fair enough. I'm merely pointing out that any historian will tell you that one of the first things one does when considering any evidential source - whether that be primary, secondary, or tertiary - is to consider (amongst other things) the bias, perspective and scope of any source. Serpico has now edited his post, but at the time he said Porter was one of the best sources of information on Israel and the Middle East. All I did was challenge the inherent bias of the source - which, last time I checked, was the first thing one was supposed to do with a source of information. As for me...it's probably worth remembering that everyone here is a mere observer; sharing things (evidence) they've read by other people and merely providing their own opinion based on that. People are allowed to challenge bias. In fact people should do it more often. The trouble, of course, starts when individuals start forgetting about preconceptions, bias, and subsequently mistaking their own opinion based on that as fact. As someone said before (without irony, I'm guesing)...you just have be careful where you get your information from.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 5, 2024 20:04:21 GMT
To be honest, that's how easy it was to discredit the "source" Serpico was stating as one of the best sources of information on Israel and the Middle East. Extrapolating the fact that the Buzz Feed article makes no logical sense given the chap would have known what was being talked about at that conference way before he happened to turn up does nothing for the balanced argument he wanted to make. It's not an evidential caveat Serpico omitted - given he relies on such characters as sources of evidence it merely demonstrates how much misguided rubbish people will believe. You’ve Googled his name and cherry picked part of a quote from Wikipedia you’ve discredited nothing in fairness. I have very little of knowledge of the person in question, I suspect you don’t either….. Not really. Gareth Porter is widely known and I've come across his work before. As I've said previously, he has a particular slant which, to be quite honest, most people do.
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 20:19:28 GMT
via mobile
gawa likes this
Post by serpico on Oct 5, 2024 20:19:28 GMT
You haven't succeeded in discrediting any source though have you? Many people are challenging you and nobody seems to be agreeing. Gareth Porter is a renowned award winning investigative journalist, historian and author. With the greatest respect he's a much more credible source than yourself. Why don't you critique the referenced article rather than the individual? I just provided a critique of the inherent bias Porter has. It's not for me to consider him discredited, as such. The point here is that Porter can certainly be replied upon to give an anti-Israeli slant on things - and that is fair enough. I'm merely pointing out that any historian will tell you that one of the first things one does when considering any evidential source - whether that be primary, secondary, or tertiary - is to consider (amongst other things) the bias, perspective and scope of any source. Serpico has now edited his post, but at the time he said Porter was one of the best sources of information on Israel and the Middle East. All I did was challenge the inherent bias of the source - which, last time I checked, was the first thing one was supposed to do with a source of information. As for me...it's probably worth remembering that everyone here is a mere observer; sharing things (evidence) they've read by other people and merely providing their own opinion based on that. People are allowed to challenge bias. In fact people should do it more often. The trouble, of course, starts when individuals start forgetting about preconceptions, bias, and subsequently mistaking their own opinion based on that as fact. As someone said before (without irony, I'm guesing)...you just have be careful where you get your information from. My edit was to merely add a 2nd link! and I said he had produced the best work debunking much of the guff that was presented as evidence of Iran and AQ “links” I didn’t say he was the best source on the Middle East per-se!
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 5, 2024 20:21:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 5, 2024 20:21:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 5, 2024 20:55:14 GMT
Fuck Netanyahu. At least Macron has shown some minerals, unlike Starmer.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 6, 2024 8:18:40 GMT
Fuck Netanyahu. At least Macron has shown some minerals, unlike Starmer. The last thing Netanyahu needs is people establishing a consensus around what happens next, and so he goes for the Trump/Farage political strategy of intentional polarisation. The moment consensus occurs, Netanyahu is essentially ousted out and put before the ICC. If Netanyahu has his way this war will continue for some time in perfect perpetual motion. I can’t think of a better reason to get a political consensus quickly around what happens next (ie ceasefire and work towards talks as soon as the US election is through).
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 6, 2024 8:47:35 GMT
If Isreal gives back all the land it has seized since it set up the Isreali state there would be no state of Isreal. By definition that is not a two state solution and nobody proposing a two state solution is suggesting that is the way to do it. Are you suggesting the Irealis just give up on Isreal as a state (which is not going to happen), the Palestinians and their supporters win the war and eradicate the state of Isreal (doubtboy given their military capability and US backing) or that the Palestinians continue to be denied statehood and just put up with being shat on by the Isrealis (which just perpetuates the problem). If none of them what are you proposing? I’m proposing that Isreal returns to the boarders that were agreed in 1949 Thus allowing a fully functioning democratic Palestinian state That can exist in conjunction with Isreal Ok that's fair enough and I agree. In fact an agreement on what land belongs to Isreal and what land belongs to Palestine has to be a fundamental part of any two state solution.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 6, 2024 11:18:24 GMT
This article is a new low even for the Guardian/Observer…..
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 6, 2024 11:55:12 GMT
This article is a new low even for the Guardian/Observer….. It's written by an author with a (at least for me) obvious bias. "Ask how Israel is able to target innocent children with such deadly accuracy and no one can tell you. Ask why they would want to target innocent children and make themselves despised among the nations of the Earth and no one can tell you that either."Well, people rather can tell you, Mr Jacobson. The point is that Israel isn't "targeting" innocent children per se - innocent children have all to frequently been considered an acceptable level of collateral damage by a man who seemingly perceives all Palestinian and/or Arab people as second class to his own. Netanyahu is as much part of the problem as Hamas and Hezbollah, which is something which this author hasn't even touched upon. Nobody should consider that Netanyahu represents all Israeli opinion. Equally, no author should consider that all people marching or demonstrating against Israeli is anti-Semitic. Some us are in love with, married to, going out with and friends with people who class themselves as Jewish. Judaism isn't at the forefront of the minds of the majority of those protesting Israeli actions. Whilst I can't speak for everyone, I'm quietly confident that the majority of people on those demonstrations simply abhor Netanyahu and his rhetoric. Much in the same way that most Israeli's seem to.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Oct 6, 2024 12:55:33 GMT
He doesn't want peace. He conveniently fails to mention that Israel have broken countless international agreements that there should be a two state solution. He and his Zionist friends have been conducting a policy of apartheid for decades against the Palestinians and it's getting worse as each year passes. He won't be satisfied until he's thrown every Palestinian out of every inch of what is, rightfully, their land. I hope he (and others) end up at The Hague. OS.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 6, 2024 17:43:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Oct 6, 2024 18:16:46 GMT
If Isreal gives back all the land it has seized since it set up the Isreali state there would be no state of Isreal. By definition that is not a two state solution and nobody proposing a two state solution is suggesting that is the way to do it. Are you suggesting the Irealis just give up on Isreal as a state (which is not going to happen), the Palestinians and their supporters win the war and eradicate the state of Isreal (doubtboy given their military capability and US backing) or that the Palestinians continue to be denied statehood and just put up with being shat on by the Isrealis (which just perpetuates the problem). If none of them what are you proposing? I’m proposing that Isreal returns to the boarders that were agreed in 1949 Thus allowing a fully functioning democratic Palestinian state That can exist in conjunction with Isreal Thing is, there's no feasible Palestinian state with 750000 settlers in the West Bank. What state is possible? A state so fragmented it's more a series of bantustans connected by a flag. Tbh At the highest level I see the two state solution now as a salve for the West and a cover to buy time for further land theft and the greater Israel findamentalists. If the West started to really get behind one democratic state it would not only expose that its not currently democratic but would be a massive motivation for Israel/ Israelis to sit up and change direction. Personally I don't pay the two state solution lip service any more. But I appreciate some people have well meaning and genuine belief in it.
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 6, 2024 18:39:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by Davef on Oct 6, 2024 18:39:13 GMT
When BBC News broadcast the Ayatollah's 45 minute speech on Friday, did they censor his anti Israel propaganda?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 6, 2024 18:39:38 GMT
I’m proposing that Isreal returns to the boarders that were agreed in 1949 Thus allowing a fully functioning democratic Palestinian state That can exist in conjunction with Isreal Thing is, there's no feasible Palestinian state with 750000 settlers in the West Bank. What state is possible? A state so fragmented it's more a series of bantustans connected by a flag. Tbh At the highest level I see the two state solution now as a salve for the West and a cover to buy time for further land theft and the greater Israel findamentalists. If the West started to really get behind one democratic state it would not only expose that its not currently democratic but would be a massive motivation for Israel/ Israelis to sit up and change direction. Personally I don't pay the two state solution lip service any more. But I appreciate some people have well meaning and genuine belief in it. I totally agree with almost everything you say But the Palestinians best option is the two state solution wether the Israeli government will ceed sufficient land to make it viable is doubtful
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 6, 2024 19:17:57 GMT
I’m proposing that Isreal returns to the boarders that were agreed in 1949 Thus allowing a fully functioning democratic Palestinian state That can exist in conjunction with Isreal Thing is, there's no feasible Palestinian state with 750000 settlers in the West Bank. What state is possible? A state so fragmented it's more a series of bantustans connected by a flag. Tbh At the highest level I see the two state solution now as a salve for the West and a cover to buy time for further land theft and the greater Israel findamentalists. If the West started to really get behind one democratic state it would not only expose that its not currently democratic but would be a massive motivation for Israel/ Israelis to sit up and change direction. Personally I don't pay the two state solution lip service any more. But I appreciate some people have well meaning and genuine belief in it. Is anyone actively pursuing a single state solution? It's something that is possible in principle but if no one is actively pursuing it as an option its dead in the water. No one is saying a two state solution is easy but at least their are credible actors trying to make it happen, including the likes of SaudibArabia and Qatar.
|
|
|
Israel
Oct 6, 2024 19:42:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by ColonelMustard on Oct 6, 2024 19:42:36 GMT
Thing is, there's no feasible Palestinian state with 750000 settlers in the West Bank. What state is possible? A state so fragmented it's more a series of bantustans connected by a flag. Tbh At the highest level I see the two state solution now as a salve for the West and a cover to buy time for further land theft and the greater Israel findamentalists. If the West started to really get behind one democratic state it would not only expose that its not currently democratic but would be a massive motivation for Israel/ Israelis to sit up and change direction. Personally I don't pay the two state solution lip service any more. But I appreciate some people have well meaning and genuine belief in it. Is anyone actively pursuing a single state solution? It's something that is possible in principle but if no one is actively pursuing it as an option its dead in the water. No one is saying a two state solution is easy but at least their are credible actors trying to make it happen, including the likes of SaudibArabia and Qatar. One state with a civil rights movement is a concept I got from Palestinians and it's what made me question the ubiquitous nature of two state solution in the political and media class. No one is pushing it in mainstream , but I wish they were. Even just as an alternative to the two state and ongoing occupation/ annexation. Israel has been on a path under Neteyahu of destroying the two state solution, but with a view to a different goal than a democratic one state. Even the idea calls his bluff. Fully annex or leave.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 6, 2024 19:51:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Oct 6, 2024 21:05:41 GMT
|
|