Idxomer
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2014
- Messages
- 15,756
Ethnic cleansing and stealing the land has always been the main goal.
yup, spot on really!
Ethnic cleansing and stealing the land has always been the main goal.
After 9/11, Kasparov talked about making an example "from Tehran to Mecca" and even using nukes. He's worth listening to regarding Putin/Russia, but for Israel-Palestine and the middle-east in general...not so much. Last i read him talking about it in an interview (maybe five years ago roughly) he still thought the Iraq War was justified!.
Why would anyone take a chess player as gospel in international matters? Who gives a flying one about what Kasparov thinks? It's his opinion and he's certainly allowed to have one, but what makes him an authority about any international matter or someone we should refer to?After 9/11, Kasparov talked about making an example "from Tehran to Mecca" and even using nukes. He's worth listening to regarding Putin/Russia, but for Israel-Palestine and the middle-east in general...not so much. Last i read him talking about it in an interview (maybe five years ago roughly) he still thought the Iraq War was justified!.
Not really spot on. Nothing he said is spot on. He is legitimising ethnic cleansing "because it happened in the past". That is horrible.
Why would anyone take a chess player as gospel in international matters? Who gives a flying one about what Kasparov thinks? It's his opinion and he's certainly allowed to have one, but what makes him an authority about any international matter or someone we should refer to?
What's next? Should we seek after Michael Owen's wisdom?
Why would anyone take a chess player as gospel in international matters? Who gives a flying one about what Kasparov thinks? It's his opinion and he's certainly allowed to have one, but what makes him an authority about any international matter or someone we should refer to?
What's next? Should we seek after Michael Owen's wisdom?
he’s not legitimising it - he’s pointing out the uncomfortable reality of the situation.
On top of that he wrote a book (Winter is Coming) which sadly predicted a few years before exactly what Putin did and is doing.He's been a political activist for years alongside his chess career, so at least in terms of Russia, he has the experience of having led pro-democracy protests in Moscow and having been arrested by Putin as a point of reference to be able to speak about what's happening there (which is 90% of where his punditry is applied on US TV). His knowledge of Israel-Palestine is average at best.
After 9/11, Kasparov talked about making an example "from Tehran to Mecca" and even using nukes. He's worth listening to regarding Putin/Russia, but for Israel-Palestine and the middle-east in general...not so much. Last i read him talking about it in an interview (maybe five years ago roughly) he still thought the Iraq War was justified!.
He’s not even a very good expert on Russia, let alone world politics.On top of that he wrote a book (Winter is Coming) which sadly predicted a few years before exactly what Putin did and is doing.
can he be wrong on issues? Absolutely. But he is worth listening to.
@That_Bloke Please PM any good books written by Michael Owen.
So he is legitimising it. Not only legitimising it, he is also wrong on Palestanians refusing peace and two states solution.he’s not legitimising it - he’s pointing out the uncomfortable reality of the situation.
That's just nutters daydreaming. This is not happening.
He’s not even a very good expert on Russia, let alone world politics.
So he is legitimising it. Not only legitimising it, he is also wrong on Palestanians refusing peace and two states solution.
When were there a two state presented for the Palestinians that they rejected, the closest the indigenous people of the land were offered was a sub state.I mean, this is just copying from wiki - whatever the Palestinian civilians think, those at a political level with any power have rejected peace.
‘The stated goal of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is to conquer Israel and replace it with an Islamist state.[23] Both groups reject the Oslo Accords and other plans for peace with Israel. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the two groups worked together to derail the peace process by attacking Israeli civilians’
Not in the next 3-4 years. But give it time. It is just the first step of normalization on the talks of claiming Gaza
I cannot say that it will never happen. But not in the next 3-4 years either. While there are some factions who daydream of this, it's very far away from any sort of normalization.
Agree. Because timing matters. But I could see that happening before the decade ends. First thing is putting on the conversations. And that is what are they doing with this farfetched pipedream in this context. For now
I’m pretty sure it’ll be the twelfth of Never.At what point can Israel and American authorities be held accountable for war crimes?
Depends on the course of history. If the Palestinians do eventually get their justice and their own state, the US will be remembered as a force on the wrong side of history actively working against it and essentially be a quasi-genocidal, apartheid enabler. Of course you'll get politicians backtracking and claiming they always supported justice for the Palestinians and comically backtrack, just like veteran conservative politicians do today regarding Mandela and the ANC. If the Israelis succeed in ethnically cleansing and completely homogenising the land, it'll be a footnote in the history books under the whole 'oh this was unfortunate, we should learn from this, never again', and then be swiftly forgotten.At what point can Israel and American authorities be held accountable for war crimes?
Of course you'll get politicians backtracking and claiming they always supported justice for the Palestinians and comically backtrack, just like veteran conservative politicians do today regarding Mandela and the ANC.
At what point can Israel and American authorities be held accountable for war crimes?
The concept applies, they're just criminals that get away with it.The concept of war crimes generally doesn't apply to large states or their close allies, since they can simply ignore all charges and no one can do anything about it.
The concept applies, they're just criminals that get away with it.
The concept does very much apply, the practice of punishing it doesn't seem to. The US and Israel can by every interpretation of the terminology be rightfully accused of carrying out or abetting war crimes, but will likely not be punished for it.It doesn't, otherwise it would've been implemented. The very concept of international law can't be applied to powerful nation states, which makes it useless and irrelevant as a meaningful legal device.
You can't apply the law, but you can clearly say that israel is a criminal state, much like the US and all major powers. Therefore the concept applies.It doesn't, otherwise it would've been implemented. The very concept of international law can't be applied to powerful nation states, which makes it useless and irrelevant as a meaningful legal device.
You can't apply the law, but you can clearly say that israel is a criminal state, much like the US and all major powers. Therefore the concept applies.
The concept does very much apply, the practice of punishing it doesn't seem to. The US and Israel can by every interpretation of the terminology be rightfully accused of carrying out or abetting war crimes, but will likely not be punished for it.