omariqy Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 34 minutes ago, T-Dog said: No no no no no no no no I've my views on what's going on, but whatever you feel about things, I hope this isn't true Which bit isn't true sorry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 I'm going to trust my fellow Vt'r - I'm not prepared to watch that, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, T-Dog said: No no no no no no no no I've my views on what's going on, but whatever you feel about things, I hope this isn't true What;s the difference between babies and 8 year olds? There's zero respect for life, cos muslim - and that's a stone cold fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 Quote Footage from the scene of Sunday’s airstrike in Rafah showed heavy destruction. The Israeli military said its air force struck a Hamas compound and that the strike was carried out with “precise ammunition and on the basis of precise intelligence. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/26/hamas-rocket-attack-tel-aviv-israel-gaza So proud of our equivalent RAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 8 hours ago, Jareth said: It wasn't caught, it was deliberate. They were making a statement that it was legitimate to use that phrase, because they were calling for a palestine state, which would be exactly as that phrase suggests geographically. They believe in a 2 state solution. So she deliberately used a phrase used by PLO to describe wiping out Israel. Excuse me for pointing out how dumb that is. They phrase encompasses the whole of both countries, and doesn’t mention two states. You’re inventing meaning that isn’t there. It’s like saying what the Nazis said when they greeted each other and claiming that it simply means hello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 11 hours ago, Jareth said: Here's someone balanced, before Israel defenders bounce in with historical reasoning Who is defending Israel? You seem to be stuck in the never ending loop of us against them. For context, you know Hamas fired rockets from the same area hours earlier, what did you expect would happen? The IDF and Hamas are having a death match, and once again you seem perfectly unable to see the Palestinian aggression, even if it was two hours earlier, that caused this horrible response. Using a refugee camp to fire rockets (war crime) and bombing said rocket launch site are both horrible things to do. It’s time for the UN to move into Gaza and stop this rather than the shitty back and forth. Edited May 27 by magnkarl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 150% agree that the UN take Rafah and Gaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 27 Moderator Share Posted May 27 The UN needs to move into Gaza and Israel. Ultimately we need to find a way to remove the need for a desperate people to fall victim to a government based on a fundamental hatred and the only way you do that is to first free them from the tyranny of their neighbour. Remove Israel from Gaza, defend Gaza militarily, lift the blockade, give the people peace, freedom and the ability and support to rebuild and trade and you remove the need for Hamas. Free people don't vote for a terrorist party and a two state solution requires two states with an equality of rights and freedoms. That would take time and patience, especially the patience of Israel, because, in the interim, there will be attacks - that's the nature of fundamentalism and terrorism, a successful two state solution will need Israel to accept that they need to strengthen Gaza, even as it attacks them - because that's the only way that the attacks eventually stop. We are a million miles from that place and the only people who can choose to step in its direction are Israel - to impose it from outside would require a military intervention against Israel by the West, which at this point is unthinkable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 27 Moderator Share Posted May 27 If the UN occupied Gaza. How would that work? What happens when Hamas launch rockets at Israel and its under UN control? It’s a serious question. I have no idea if the correct answer but the ramifications of sending the UN in to control an area where the protagonists on both sides wouldn’t welcome them definitely needs to be addressed before anyone considers it to be an option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 13 hours ago, Jareth said: Gaza and the West Bank as far as I understand it. I also stand corrected. Map of Israel on currently recognised borders: I'm fully in favour of a two-state solution, and it's a perfectly sound thing for these countries to do in recognising as such. But it does then mean a conversation opens up about borders. As you can see from the above "the river" is the Israeli-Jordanian border. So if someone both recognises Palestinian statehood and are "calling for a palestine state, which would be exactly as that phrase suggests geographically", then that's not a call for a two state solution, it's a call for a single Palestinian state where Israel currently is, and for Israel to no longer exist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 27 Moderator Share Posted May 27 13 hours ago, omariqy said: A British spy plane was flying in the vicinity at the same time Looking for signs of hostages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 27 Moderator Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: As you can see from the above "the river" is the Israeli-Jordanian border. So if someone both recognises Palestinian statehood and are "calling for a palestine state, which would be exactly as that phrase suggests geographically", then that's not a call for a two state solution, it's a call for a single Palestinian state where Israel currently is, and for Israel to no longer exist. I mean, technically one could be in the North from the river to the sea and the other could be in the South from the river to the sea (but it would be ridiculous). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 27 VT Supporter Share Posted May 27 From the river to the sea isn't an existential threat to Israel anymore than Rule Britannia is a threat to non-British naval power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 27 VT Supporter Share Posted May 27 And never forget when having these vital discussions that kids are being splattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 42 minutes ago, bickster said: If the UN occupied Gaza. How would that work? What happens when Hamas launch rockets at Israel and its under UN control? It’s a serious question. I have no idea if the correct answer but the ramifications of sending the UN in to control an area where the protagonists on both sides wouldn’t welcome them definitely needs to be addressed before anyone considers it to be an option It’s a poison chalice, even if Israel and all the major Palestinian militant groups did enter into an agreement with the best of intentions and no external party was trying to sabotage a peace deal. It’d be hard enough just to enforce law and order without being seen as an occupying force, let alone having to deal with splinter groups of militants either attacking Israel or the peacekeepers. I imagine that’s the main reason why none of the neighbouring countries that support the Palestinian cause have shown any interest in deploying peacekeepers in any planned peace deal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 2 hours ago, Panto_Villan said: It’s a poison chalice, even if Israel and all the major Palestinian militant groups did enter into an agreement with the best of intentions and no external party was trying to sabotage a peace deal. It’d be hard enough just to enforce law and order without being seen as an occupying force, let alone having to deal with splinter groups of militants either attacking Israel or the peacekeepers. I imagine that’s the main reason why none of the neighbouring countries that support the Palestinian cause have shown any interest in deploying peacekeepers in any planned peace deal. It’s also this very reason why Egypt has by far the strictest control over their border with Gaza out of the two. Palestinian people = trouble for the last 70 years. It’d be totally dumb to assume that they’ve changed based on 70 years of antagonising, terrorising and couping their neighbours and letting them into their own Arabic countries. They serve their purpose where they are, which is to crate the dilemma we’re now seeing. I’m not seeing any great gestures from the states that are egging them on to commit terrorism, how about Qatar following up their 1bln ‘aid package’ for Hamas with some actual peace-enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 4 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: I mean, technically one could be in the North from the river to the sea and the other could be in the South from the river to the sea (but it would be ridiculous). When you need this sort of technicality to try to explain the phrase, it’s probably wiser to not say it, no? Especially for someone as high up in a government in the same breath as saying that they recognise the state they want to be in the space between said river and sea. Considering that Spain is probably only second to Germany at causing harm to the Jewish minority with their various massacres and genocides throughout time it makes it incredibly easy for Benny to trot out his usual bs on antisemitism, which he has, and the Spanish right is using it as ammunition for why the current government needs to go. The same goes for Norway who has a ‘Paragraph for Jews’ in their constitution for a very long time. It wouldn’t be very hard to not use that saying. Edited May 27 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 29 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Palestinian people = trouble for the last 70 years. What happened 70 years ago for this to have a start date? How would you feel if someone had started that same sentence but with ‘Israelis’? Edited May 27 by chrisp65 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 20 minutes ago, magnkarl said: It’s also this very reason why Egypt has by far the strictest control over their border with Gaza out of the two. Palestinian people = trouble for the last 70 years. It’d be totally dumb to assume that they’ve changed based on 70 years of antagonising, terrorising and couping their neighbours and letting them into their own Arabic countries. They serve their purpose where they are, which is to crate the dilemma we’re now seeing. I’m not seeing any great gestures from the states that are egging them on to commit terrorism, how about Qatar following up their 1bln ‘aid package’ for Hamas with some actual peace-enforcement. I don't actually think it'd be a good idea to have outside peacekeeping forces in Palestine anyway, so I don't think it's relevant. I'm sure Hamas could keep the other Palestinians in line if they wanted to; the only reason you'd need outside peacekeepers is if you were trying to hold elections or cut the militant groups out of the government. And if you attempt that - well, the men with the guns aren't exactly going to thrilled, are they? And that's the crux of the problem. If the Israeli military can't wipe out Hamas, how would Qatar or any other local military force manage it? Especially when the Israelis are using very little restraint, and the peacekeepers would be expected to avoid civilian casualties. It'd be an impossible task. So I feel like any Palestinian state would be a dictatorship governed by militants. In an ideal world they'd end up in a similar position to Hezbollah, where they avoid large scale conflict with Israel because they don't want half their country to get flattened. Maybe in time that could lead to a more durable peace. Of course, in reality it'd probably just result in Israel repeatedly invading Palestine to try to stamp up the militants attacking them ... but ultimately, at least there's a chance things might settle down if Palestine was made an independent state. There's zero chance that'll happen in the current setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: What happened 70 years ago for this to have a start date? How would you feel if someone had started that same sentence but with ‘Israelis’? Israel was founded roughly 70 years ago. People have repeatedly statements to that effect about the Israelis over the past few weeks, and exploring how justified they are(n't) is why there's been so much discussion about the history of the Israel over the past few days. (Although apparently we're not allowed to discuss topics like that.) Disclaimer: for clarity, I think the Rafah aid camp bombings were another gross overreaction from Israel even if the area was being used as a rocket launch area, because I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it if those rockets had killed any Israelis. The test for war crimes is based around justifiable threat and I can't see them having a particularly convincing case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts