Who would, with the childlike giant red letters? I'm an adult.
Scores die in Israeli air strikes
- Thread starter IhabX7
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Who would, with the childlike giant red letters? I'm an adult.
Is that supposed to be a justification?
Don't worry, no offence taken at all.
I'm thinking there will need to be some really robust trade agreements in place to make the Palestinian state economically viable. I mean what can they base their economy on? Tourism? Not for a long time after peace... Natural resources? Not that I know of... So it's economy will have to be largely based on the good will of it's neighbours (largely Israel) in the medium term.
In return for the economic assistance, I think there will have to be a concession from Palestine. And I think this will probably have to be a constitutional commitment to not having a military force, much like Japan after the second world war (not that I am comparing the two's actions). This may give Israel some reassurance at least.
Clarification.
You wouldn't read them anyway.
Thought you would have appreciated the red colour though.
So you're clarifying that the takeover of an Arabic state led to reprucussions in other Arabic nations, while that isn't a good thing, I do not feel that it should have an impact on how the Palestinian situation is dealt with, unless it was possible to use it as leverage in getting assistance for the new Palestinian state.
Also I did not suggest reparations to be made to the individual palestinians so yes I'd deal with the individual Jews in the same way.
What Arabic state was taken over??
the international outcry during Serbia was immense. That wasn't my main point though, and the point is that the British establishment is allied to Israel.
and it is wrong to say that Israel was attacked first - the blockade, the denial of access to international aid agencies, were all actions by Israel that precipiateted the rocket attacks
have a read of this and tell me who really precipitated the attacks
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/sieg01_.html
I am eternally grateful for your kindness.
Civilians lose their innocence the moment they decide to support an organisation at the ballot box committed to the destruction of another nation and its people.
This is like Nazi Germany all over again, although thankfully in this instance the military power is overwhelmingly weighted in the civilised nation's favour.
I think we all know what would happen if the roles were reversed and the islamist facists had the upper hand militarily. We wouldn't be talking about a couple of hundred civilians being accidentally killed, we'd be talking about millions of civilians being brutally murdered through mass genocide.
that's all conjecture and supposition. How do you decide who is 'civilised' and who isn't so easily?
you would not blockade the places from where the rockets are fired, would not deny aid agencies access, would not beat up people for daring to win Dutch peace prises, would not shoot people from helicopters... and you would start negotiating towards a lasting peace settlement along the lines of, let's say, 1949
but why restrict aid agencies' access to the territory? What security purpose does that serve?
also, you can't complain about people being blown up in buses when you blow up hundreds yourself...
but they knew that their actions would result in Palestinian kids being killed. Therefore they effectively agreed to murder kids.
it's like Shaun Mercer. He didn't mean to kill that kid, but he was reckless, so he did. If you shoot a gun in a piblic place, you might just kill kids. Same with Israel, if you fire rockets into tightly populated spaces, you will kill kids, and the responcibility would be yours.
Palestine, and semantic pedantry is not a valid form of debate.
Palestine in 1931 had a population of 1mill, of which 200,000 were Jewish, which made it a fairly Arabic place.
ah, here is the 'we need to defend ourselves' argument again. How does it justify making things difficult for international relief agencies? How does it justify the severity of the blockade?
yes, we do not want rockets hitting nuclear power plants. but, well that's why you should negotiate with them to stop rocket fire shouldn't you? Until November the 4th, when you made a stupid incursion into their territory there was very little rocket fire right?
you talk as if the rocket fire is happening 'just because they hate Israel'. It isn't, Israeli actions contributed to the situation being what it is now.
Hamas isn't nearly the terrible monster that 'just has to be eradicated' that you want us to be believe it is. I asked Fearless this question and he never answered it: if you were Hamas, if your peope were humuliated for years, and starved by a two-year campaign, what else would you do? Say 'oh well it's ok, do what you like to us'?
Most of Hamas would be very receptive to peaceful overtures, I am sure.
because this rocket attack is in turn a response to that country's continued mistreatment of the people firing rockets?
Anyway that's beside the point. The point being, that UK and US are staunchly behind Israel on this, and do whatever they can to exonerate them without openly alienating the Arab nations. Problem is, people look at the causalty figures on both sides and say 'this doesn't make sense, you cannot justify killing this number of people to stop some rocket attacks'.
would you expand abit please on this. I'm not quite sure what you are alluding to.
but they wanted them out of Ulster, which the UK saw as part of itself?
but their attacks happen in response to Israeli persecution, they don't just happen on their own...
Look at the facts. In 1947 the UN partitioned the land, already giving Israel more than their share of population merited. Then by 1949 Israel grabbed some more. By 1967 they grabbed all of the land. Remember that under the UN charter the gain of land through war is forbidden. In 1999 they offered a derisory settlement, not even giving back all of the land taken in 1967. All the time Israeli settlements encroach on Palestinian land. Rabin tried to stop this and he was shot by one of his own. It's an irreversible process, since the Israelis will claim this land as theirs.
The Palestinians feel that if they don't fight, all of their land will be, bit by bit, quietly, gone. Maybe the Israelis will leave them a few bantustans here and there, but it would be gone. And they may well be right.
Still, the Palestinians, seeing their situation so dire, and international help not forthcoming (unlike the case with Kosovo) agreed co ceasefires, talks, discussions etc etc. But discussions never led anywhere, and throughout the Israelis treated the people in the land as second class citizens. Is it a wonder that some of that occupied people choose to take up arms and fight? If they don't, their land will be gone, forever.
And even when they do sign a truce, one of the conditions being a lifting of the blockade, the Israelis don't lift the blockade. Then on Nov 4th they attack Gaza. Then the rocket fire started, of course it would have started, would you ahve expected Hamas to just sit and keep taking it?
I believe that the Israelis could return to the borders of 1967, give the Palestinians control of east Jerusalem, end Israeli occupation of Palestine and give the Palestinian refugees the freedom to return home.
And let's not forget Stalin's role in all this. It was he who persuaded the other Allies to form Israel.
which could in turn have been avoided if the blockade and the Nov 4th incursion didn't happen?
of course they will. And then will turn round like Shaun mercer and say 'oh but poor me, I never _meant_ to kill that kid'
1936 there were around 120.000 Jews living in Iraq. Today there are maybe 10 left.
Something is missing in your chronology. Who 'grabbed' Palestinian land between 1948 and 1967?
Bill, all I'll say to try and make you understand is that your position is a very easy position to get to if you yourself are part of the group who committed/profited from the various atrocities in those countries whom you invaded and now wanted peace from those past mistakes.
The 'modern' interpretation of law and order is that past crimes should be tried and suitable punishment should be administered partly to allow people to be free from being a 'prisoner of that past'. That is why it is so important. The 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' in South Africa post apartheid is a shining example of that. Indeed without that, reverse apartheid would have happened and the white population erased with a vengeance.
Its not dissimilar to the debate on deforestation being a key cause of global warming. Where did Sherwood Forest disappear or the Forest in the London suburb of Forest Gate (many many more examples across the western world). Put simply, its easy to demonize Brazilian and Indonesians for profiting from deforestation that accelerates global warming today when you (and I mean you, me, us as Brit's) caused the problem in the first place with your own greed.
I appreciate what you are saying but ask that you really try and imagine what it is like for those on the receiving end and then tell me how 'your sadness' evolves.
BTW, you make an excellent point about 'The reason why British Empire is blamed for various issues around the world stem from its relatively recent demise the power vacuums it left behind'. Only 2 weeks ago, I was traveling round Malaysia learning about how the Dutch had once been its colonial masters and I had never ever known and was ashamed by my ignorance. Yes, they were several generations before the British empire (which by the way was also a force for advancement in many instances) and so escape the scrutiny of moral judgement that Britain might come under.
That's no better no worse, but to judge the Palestinians for the crimes of the Iraqis makes no sense to me.
Thank you both and esp vardamir for providing a such well reasoned and succinct synopsis of the facts and history of this dispute. Those who suggest (and I'll assume that its with good intent) that history is best ignored in this instance are either optimistically naive or cannot comprehend the human psyche in this instance.
Great going Vardamir.
Got it. Thanks
Mt point was that it's a bit pointless to go back in time and figure out population numbers in order to determine how much land one should get. The Jewish population in Egypt by the early first century BC is estimated at ca. one million. Surely large parts of Egypt were 'Jewish'!
.... it could have been avoided as he should not have gotten in the way of my rocket that aimed at his school. But that is the unavoidable cost of war.
Yep, can see the press release right now.
Should Jordan also end the occupation of Palestine? Or do we not refer to the land west of the Jordan river as Palestine?
Your omission of facts is staggering.
What happened to the 1948, 67 & 73 combined Arab attacks????????????
And your Un charter thingy is utter bollocks when it comes to the defensive side ie Israel.
Facts.
UN 242 - what it means in reality
242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines;
242 mandates negotiation - give and take, rather than give and give;
242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation;
242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of 'secure and recognized borders', which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized.
242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines;
242 mandates negotiation - give and take, rather than give and give;
242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation;
242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of 'secure and recognized borders', which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized.
The latest of Fisk's fantastic coverage of what is really going on.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/sieg01_.html
'What is required for a breakthrough is the adoption by the Security Council of a resolution affirming the following: 1. Changes to the pre-1967 situation can be made only by agreement between the parties. Unilateral measures will not receive international recognition. 2. The default setting of Resolution 242, reiterated by Resolution 338, the 1973 ceasefire resolution, is a return by Israel’s occupying forces to the pre-1967 border. 3. If the parties do not reach agreement within 12 months (the implementation of agreements will obviously take longer), the default setting will be invoked by the Security Council. The Security Council will then adopt its own terms for an end to the conflict, and will arrange for an international force to enter the occupied territories to help establish the rule of law, assist Palestinians in building their institutions, assure Israel’s security by preventing cross-border violence, and monitor and oversee the implementation of terms for an end to the conflict.'
the 1949 ceasefire line should be used as a non-negotiable boundary
the compensation would be the land Israel seized in 1947-9
Someone posted this link earlier. Its fantastic and I thought it was worth sharing in full. If you don't like/agree with Fisk (though I have no idea why this can be so), then you dont have to read it 