Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- 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.
I do not see how that happens without a world war. Essentially Israel does not want to give the territory they occupied and they are by far the stronger side in the conflict. They also have the backing of world’s strongest country and have normalized relations with most of their neighbors.
Palestinians on the other hand at this stage are two completely separate entities. The Gazas controlled by a terrorist organization whom want Palestine from the river to the sea, and the West Bank from a relatively weak regime who want far more territory on the West Bank that any Israeli government would think on giving them.
Finding a two-state solution at this stage is just impossible. There is as a big chance of that happening, as the US being divided into two states, one controlled by the Native Americans, and one from the others.
Yes, which is why there will never be a military solution for the Palestinians, which in turn just shows the futility of Hamas and its mission to get rid of Israel by force, despite being vastly outgunned.
Nobody here is accepting it as a solution. More a last resort that would still be preferable over the very worst care scenario.
And let's assume Israel agrees to completely exit all current Palestine territories and then agreens to declare borders. Who represents the Palestinians in this? The PA? Hamas? An independent party? Do they agree?
Also, it's fair to point out Owlo did state it would be better for Israel to move. But that's not going to happen. The reality is desperate.
I swear some posters here are not real, they are bots. They cant be real people with this line of thinking.
It’s been heading that way for a decade or more through Israeli actions and Palestinian reactions but unfortunately became an immutable truth on October 7th. I think the two state solution is dead for a generation. The only person who seems to think it isn’t, is Joe Biden. (He wants to talk about it after Israel turn Gaza into Grozny and kill countless more kids)
It’s why there’s so much hopelessness being expressed. I’d encourage you to tell me one vaguely realistic way to navigate out of this mess towards a 2 state solution, or even one where 2 million people don’t have to live in a 250sqm hellhole being run by terrorists and regularly bombarded by oppressors.
Even if Israel complete their campaign, destroy Hamas, and the PA takes over Gaza, there’s far too much hatred on both sides now. Every Palestinian will know a dead kid or relative, as will every Israeli. Iran will still be determined to prevent it. Israel will still want revenge, and rewarding Palestinians with a state after this will never be countenanced.
In a generation perhaps..
This is a very strange post. No offence.
I don't know what to say either.
Personally I cannot see any other end point to this than ethnic cleansing, played out in real time on TV, with tens of thousands of innocents killed.
The only way Israel will know Hamas is removed from Gaza is by removing every Palestinian from Gaza.
I guess here is my point - I just don't see any realistic scenario where this does not happen, and Israel will still get to normalise relations with Saudi and other states afterwards. The UN has no power without the US, and it is not politically realistic for the US to get involved
I have colleagues whose families in Gaza have disappeared and are likely under the rubble. I am filled with impotent rage.
Personally I refuse to believe that. I don't think there's an easy way to end this current situation, it will probably carry on until Isreal fully controls Gaza, but there has to be a path to peace. Unfortunately, knowing how these processes goes, that generally doesn't happen unless both have something to lose by not coming to an agreement. Palestine is so disorganised, weak militarily and without "friends" (I don't mean this in a judgemental way), that they have very little to offer to achieve a two state solution. The only realistic path to peace and a free Palestine is to make Palestinian terroritorial sovreignty beneficial for Israel, and that is something Palestine can no longer do on their own. If Palestine, even if they managed to unite under one leadership, where to try to negotiate with Isreal - they would have nothing to negotiate with. That's not a viable foundation for long-term peace.
I'm sorry to hear that. It all feels senseless.
It's jarring.
To be fair, Hamas got behind the Great March of Return protests. According to the independent commission of inquiry into the protests, Israeli snipers deliberately maimed 6000 people who posed no immediate threat. There was a guy that got out of a car a kilometer from the fence who was immediately shot twice, one in each knee. Undoubtedly sick.
Here I will post 3 accounts from that report which were described as “emblematic of the IDF’s response”
9 a.m., Mohammad Obeid (24) shot in both legs
At approximately 9 a.m. Mohammad Obeid, a 24-year-old footballer for the Al-Salah Sports Club arrived at the demonstration site with his friend.528 Mohammad took out his telephone and began recording a “selfie” video. An ISF sniper shot him in the right side of his right leg as he filmed himself approximately 150 m from the separation fence. The bullet passed through his right leg and hit his left leg just above the knee, shattering the base of his femur. It is clear from eyewitness testimony and video footage that at the time that he was shot he was standing alone. The area was quiet and calm, there was no shooting from the Israeli side, no tear gas, no stone throwing from the Palestinian side, no one had set fire to tyres.
Mohammad was speaking calmly and filming himself when the ISF sniper shot him. He was neither advancing towards the separation fence nor encouraging anyone to advance towards it. He alternated between having his back to the ISF soldiers and having his back to the demonstrators as he filmed. The ISF sniper shot Mohammad as he turned to his right and stood perpendicular to the separation fence. The bullet’s penetratration of both Mohammad’s legs increased the impact of the injury and subsequent disability.
The Commission finds that Mohammad did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to ISF soldiers when he was shot.
12.45 p.m., student (21), shot in both legs
The ISF shot a 21-year-old student from El Nusseirat Refugee Camp in both legs with live ammunition around 12.45 p.m.
He had just arrived at the demonstrations and got out of a car, approximately one kilometre from the separation fence. The ISF first shot him in the left leg. A few seconds later, ISF soldiers shot him in his right leg. The gunshot to his left leg severed a nerve. The gunshot to his right leg caused catastrophic tissue and bone damage, requiring seven surgeries, including a bone transplant, to avoid amputation.
The Commission finds that he did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to ISF soldiers when he was shot.
3 p.m., Yousef Kronz (19), shot in both legs, led to amputation
Yousef Kronz was a 19-year-old student journalist when he attended the demonstration site east of El Bureij on 30 March. He wore a blue “PRESS” vest and carried his photography equipment, including a camera and a tripod. He sat cross-legged on top of a sand dune to take photographs of the demonstrators, at least 800 m from the separation fence. After approximately 40 minutes he stood up. As he stood up, the ISF shot him with two bullets in immediate succession which hit him in the right knee and the left knee. He collapsed on the ground. Yousef’s right leg was later amputated.529
The Commission finds that Yousef did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to ISF soldiers when he was shot.
I suspect Hamas has learned what happens when they try the Gandhi method.
For the record, a two state solution is my preferred outcome. If there is any possibility of salvaging this, every effort needs to be made to make it work.
If not, then what are the options?
"Ethnic cleansing happens, its bad, its happened to the Palestinian people a bunch of times, but it's still the best option in this case"
Please tell me you are taking the piss and somebody didn't actually say that?
Eh, I see now that they did. feck me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67312754
Players being sacked for calling for an end to the violence.
Players being sacked for calling for an end to the violence.
With all due respect, and solmnety for the current situation, their current strategy has resulted in 8000 civilians dead, 20 000 injured and 400 000 people displaced. Let's put the blame where it belongs, firmly at Isreal's doorstep, but also acknowledge that a strategy of terror is in no way effective against Isreal's superior military force and ruthless callousness.
It blows my mind that someone who is Jewish/Israeli is even talking about ethnic cleansing given that if Hitler had had his way wouldn’t even be around today to push that view.
Utterly fecking amazes me.
That can't be legal?
Sure, on this subject laws don't count.
A single state federation.
It never ceases to amaze me how hard it is for people to be meassured and reasonable. How difficult is it to agree that killing civilians, regardless of what country they come from, is wrong?
@Super Hans point is that even unarmed peaceful protest didn't work.
Ridiculous. Doesn't even make sense tbh. They reinstated him and then terminate him? Why?
I think what he posted included the words ‘from the river to the sea’ which can be interpreted as calling for an end to Israel’s right to exist or a call to wipe Israel off the map. It was the same phrase that got Hamza Choudhury into a bit of trouble. Other players have shown support for Palestine without getting into trouble.
Thanks for the context. Still not sure why they reinstated him only to then sack him though.
Ah, appologies for the misunderstanding.
How would it even be structured? We've seen similar attempts in South Sudan without the religious element, which basically ended up with the ruling tribe giving all benefits and positions of power to their own, and treating the other tribes members as second class citizens, and vice versa when that power eventually changed hands. Eventually culluminating in a very violent and very gruesome civil war. Add the religious element, and the issue of Jerusalem, and it seemingly creates more trouble than it solves.
According to reports he blindsided the club by apologizing to them in private, but then posting that he regrets nothing after they reinstated him.
I think we need to talk about this phrase “from the river to the sea”. (Sorry if this has already been discussed. It’s an enormous thread)
I realize that many Israelis see at as call to wipe out Israel. Personally I don’t think of it like that. To me it is a call for all the people between the river and the sea to be free and treated equally.
In any case, even if it was a call for the end of Israel, what does that mean? Does it mean a single state with equal rights for all? Does it mean a massacre of all the Jews in Israel? I don’t think there is much evidence for the latter.
It is not a crazy perspective to see this conflict as an anti-colonial struggle and in that light it seems very extreme to sack people for using the phrase.
Personally, I’d love to see two states but given Israel’s settlement activity is it even possible? Arguably not. So what options do we have?
I forgot who to tag to my responses, but I'll start here
Its chosen instead to appease their current path, essentially becoming enablers of genocide and ethnic cleansing. We're acting like there's no choice here when there clearly is.
Like I've always said, I don't want to hear another US and European politician lecture us on Putin and Iran.
There is a path to peace. It's called the United States - the nation that has the power to twist Israel's arm to act like a civilised state.
Its chosen instead to appease their current path, essentially becoming enablers of genocide and ethnic cleansing. We're acting like there's no choice here when there clearly is.
Like I've always said, I don't want to hear another US and European politician lecture us on Putin and Iran.
Last edited:
If you're working in the entertainment industry and you're making public, written, statements that leave it up to interpretation entirely whether you want an entire state to be wiped out, then you can't be too surprised about being disciplined.
It happened in Germany so it shouldn't surprise you that much.
Thanks. Probably justified on balance then from a corporate pov.
I'd quite like to see Israel come down hard on these settlers. Unlikely of course but from what I have read here from the Israeli posters, I don't think there would be much of a downside and it might just buy a tiniest bit of good will from the Palestinians.
We have to be realistic though. There is a 0% chance of the US doing that within any reasonable amount of time. It requires a seismic shift in the US electorate and in the power-centres of the US congress, as well as the geopolitical situation. The US has been working, quietly admittedly, on trying to get a two state solution for many years now. Any president who does it would end up with an impressive legacy in world history (which is important to presidents). They thought they had a viable path with the Saudi led initiative, which may or may not be doomed. The events of the last few weeks has certainly made it much more difficult. They will lobby quietly and privately. However, they will never publicly go against Isreal, and they will never strong-arm them.
Have they? Because they've pretty much vetoed every UNSC resolution condemning the settlements for starters. Let's not pretend they're a neutral mediator in all this. Israel is essentially a geopolitical extension of the US in the region. They're also at odds with the international community, just like they are regarding Cuba. So they're in fact the main blocker to peace, not some benevolent faction with benevolent intentions to find a lasting solution.
No no. They are a powerful political force. No Israeli PM can afford to defy them.
If the US is the answer, then things are more desperate than any of us imagined.
What evidence is there that either administration since Obama has done anything to promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict?
Unfortunate.
"International humanitarian law"
I know