Israel

[Max B Gold]

We've not found a solution so far. I reckon that if we all put in the effort, we should get there in another 25 pages or so.

I'm willing to pitch in but the minute we enter a vortex of never ending circular arguments, I'm out.

[Long slender neck]

Death toll 600 now, think about that if you're making excuses.

[Long slender neck]

Almost 400 dead in retaliation too.

[Friend or fart]

This is what happens when you are "well 'ard" & think you are 'arder than the other lot. This is what happened in Northern Ireland & just escalted & escalated. People need to see sense on both sides and talk. Not easy as people use them to fight their surrogate wars. Joe public loses out.

[ComeOnYouOs]

In my opinion, the biggest stumbling block to peace is the USA.
Until they still stop supporting Israel under any circumstances, they'll never be peace.
Israel knows it can do whatever it wants, and they'll be no price to pay, because America vetoes any potential sanctions in the UN.
I also believe America wants the war to continue in Ukraine .
America is a force for evil, when you look at is record over the last 80 years.

[RedDwarf 1881]

[RedDwarf 1881]

In my opinion, the biggest stumbling block to peace is the USA.
Until they still stop supporting Israel under any circumstances, they'll never be peace.
Israel knows it can do whatever it wants, and they'll be no price to pay, because America vetoes any potential sanctions in the UN.
I also believe America wants the war to continue in Ukraine .
America is a force for evil, when you look at is record over the last 80 years.

According the Mark Levin the USA under Joe Biden and the Democrats are now doing the exact opposite of supporting Isreal

[Currywurst and Chips]

In my opinion, the biggest stumbling block to peace is the USA.
Until they still stop supporting Israel under any circumstances, they'll never be peace.
Israel knows it can do whatever it wants, and they'll be no price to pay, because America vetoes any potential sanctions in the UN.
I also believe America wants the war to continue in Ukraine .
America is a force for evil, when you look at is record over the last 80 years.

You lost me at, In my opinion

[BoniO]

In my opinion, the biggest stumbling block to peace is the USA.
Until they still stop supporting Israel under any circumstances, they'll never be peace.
Israel knows it can do whatever it wants, and they'll be no price to pay, because America vetoes any potential sanctions in the UN.
I also believe America wants the war to continue in Ukraine .
America is a force for evil, when you look at is record over the last 80 years.

According the Mark Levin the USA under Joe Biden and the Democrats are now doing the exact opposite of supporting Isreal

Let me guess - Levin works for Fox News and is a well known right wing fruit loop?

[Proposition Joe]

In my opinion, the biggest stumbling block to peace is the USA.
Until they still stop supporting Israel under any circumstances, they'll never be peace.
Israel knows it can do whatever it wants, and they'll be no price to pay, because America vetoes any potential sanctions in the UN.
I also believe America wants the war to continue in Ukraine .
America is a force for evil, when you look at is record over the last 80 years.

According the Mark Levin the USA under Joe Biden and the Democrats are now doing the exact opposite of supporting Isreal

Let me guess - Levin works for Fox News and is a well known right wing fruit loop?

A quick few minutes of Doing My Own Research confirms he's an absolute far right wingnut.

[Long slender neck]

A 2016 study which sought to measure incendiary discourse on talk radio and TV found that Levin scored highest on its measure of "outrage". The study looked at 10 prominent radio and television programs, known for incendiary discourse on political matters, and scored content on the basis of whether it used "emotional display", "misrepresentative exaggeration", "mockery", "conflagration", "slippery slope", "insulting" or "obscene language", and other factors, finding that Levin was the radio host who engaged in the most outrage. The study found that he utilized "outrage speech or behavior at a rate of more than one instance per minute

[Max B Gold]

Some useful insight

[Admin]

This is of course completely normal from the uk media.

[CEB]

But why does he not just say “yes, I condemn Hamas”?

Let’s assume he isn’t what he’s painted as by bad faith opponents. The question being asked is therefore an attempt to catch him out. The way to avoid the trap is to say “yes I condemn Hamas for the attack” and follow up by saying “that was implicit in my statement yesterday but I’m happy to make it clear”
The response he actually gives seems to actually legitimise the follow up questions he gets, because he’s both sidesing it by not replying unequivocally that of course he condemns Hamas.
With his answer remaining the “I condemn all violence” despite being pressed, he needlessly comes over as reluctant to criticise Hamas, when it would be very simple to not give his opponents the gotcha

[BoniO]

But why does he not just say “yes, I condemn Hamas”?

Let’s assume he isn’t what he’s painted as by bad faith opponents. The question being asked is therefore an attempt to catch him out. The way to avoid the trap is to say “yes I condemn Hamas for the attack” and follow up by saying “that was implicit in my statement yesterday but I’m happy to make it clear”
The response he actually gives seems to actually legitimise the follow up questions he gets, because he’s both sidesing it by not replying unequivocally that of course he condemns Hamas.
With his answer remaining the “I condemn all violence” despite being pressed, he needlessly comes over as reluctant to criticise Hamas, when it would be very simple to not give his opponents the gotcha

You’ve just proven that it doesn’t matter what he says, some plonker will always find fault.

[CEB]

Summarising how he could have said a thing that nobody would have taken issue with is proving that people will find fault whatever he says?

Dearie me.
The point is that Corbyn’s response *fits* what his detractors would predict he would say. It is very easily categorised as equivocation and both sidesing something that it’s easy to unambiguously condemn.

It’s bizarre to look at that clip and genuinely not see why this doesn’t show Corbyn at best as having poor judgment as to how to avoid traps.

[faldO]

Or maybe he doesn't say "yes I condemn Hamas" because he doesn't condemn Hamas.

[CEB]

Or maybe he doesn't say "yes I condemn Hamas" because he doesn't condemn Hamas.

It’s difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt after that clip, absolutely.
But for the purposes of the conversation I was just more interested in how that clip was framed as the media being weird, rather than it being a pretty standard follow up to someone both sidesing an incident that he would be unlikely to treat the same way if he was asked about a different incident

[Admin]

But why does he not just say “yes, I condemn Hamas”?

Let’s assume he isn’t what he’s painted as by bad faith opponents. The question being asked is therefore an attempt to catch him out. The way to avoid the trap is to say “yes I condemn Hamas for the attack” and follow up by saying “that was implicit in my statement yesterday but I’m happy to make it clear”
The response he actually gives seems to actually legitimise the follow up questions he gets, because he’s both sidesing it by not replying unequivocally that of course he condemns Hamas.
With his answer remaining the “I condemn all violence” despite being pressed, he needlessly comes over as reluctant to criticise Hamas, when it would be very simple to not give his opponents the gotcha

He’s given the answer you’d predict him to give - likewise if he condemned Hamas he’d probably face a barrage of abuse ranging from him being a straight-up liar as he’d called them “friends” (albeit his explanation would say differently) to being a hypocrite given his previous record on Palestinian rights. Either way he’s be f*cked - a situation admittedly caused in part by his questionable record of platform sharing with some dubious characters.

My wider point is this is whole charade of chasing him for an answer is a shitefest sideshow to the situation in Israel / Gaza. It’s a cheap gotcha moment chasing a 70 something politician whose political position is one of complete irrelevance to how this issue is ever going to be resolved.

The position on this issue isn’t an absolute. There are innocent civilians on either side who are dying or going to die because of the events of the last 24 hours or so. Hamas doesn’t equate to all Palestinians and I’m sure the same goes for the current far right Israeli government and every Israeli.

However there is a total sea change in how this is reported and how little western criticism there is of Israel. Not more than 12 years ago David Cameron was openly referring to Gaza as an outdoor prison - the situation there hasn’t got better and Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their lands. Yet could you imaging the uproar if Sunak or Starmer used Cameron’s words now?

[Friend or fart]

In October 2023, does it really matter one iota what Jeremy Corbyn thinks? He is a spent man & an irrelevance.

[Admin]

In October 2023, does it really matter one iota what Jeremy Corbyn thinks? He is a spent man & an irrelevance.

Being my point. So why does our media go out of its way to find out what he thinks?

[Flying Hippo]

We've not found a solution so far. I reckon that if we all put in the effort, we should get there in another 25 pages or so.

I'm willing to pitch in but the minute we enter a vortex of never ending circular arguments, I'm out.

An entirely understandable opinion.

But it is really quite simple.

First identify the optimal outcome. Is it A. - peace (a word the protagonists use relentlessly, in Arabic or Hebrew, in every single conversation they have)? And/or is it B. - a free Palestine?

Secondly, A. - consider what would happen if everyone in the West Bank and Gaza unilaterally trashed their stockpile of weapons. 2 - Determine what response would be in Israel's best interests.

Thirdly, understand the arguments and counter arguments. Simply bar the never ending, nugatory arguments about:

Jewish/Western colonialism;
Muslim/Arab/Ottoman colonialism;
the transmigrations of ethnic and national populations in the 20th century, right around the world;
the varying ethnographic and geographical origins of the protagonists;
the Soviet Union's invention of a Palestinian nation;
apartheid;
Israel's status as the only functional democracy in the Middle East with universal suffrage for all citizens regardless of their faith;
the Arab nationalists in the last Israeli cabinet;
treatment of women and homosexuals in West Bank and Gaza;
the Jewish ultra-orthodox treatment of women and homosexuals;
the colour of someone's skin;
Judah and Samaria;
the Balfour Declaration;
UN Resolution 181(II);
ownership of land;
settlements;
foreign aid to Israel;
the Shoah;
the historical persecution and subsequent migration of Jews throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East;
that Jews don't belong in any country in the world (and considering why that is);
that Jews apparently don't belong in Israel either;
the relative and comparable sizes of the Israel and the Muslim world;
whether Jordan is Palestine;
the Muslim's world's treatment and accommodation of Palestinians (especially in Syria and Lebanon);
Egypt's role along the western border of Gaza;
child-murdering;
manipulation of media to broadcast bogus, choreographed images of child murder; and,
so on - add your own.

Fourthly, consider the potential consequences of continuing with unreformed Zionism (that is: the right of a Jew to live in Israel) and a free Palestine, free from the river to the sea. Free of Jews (see the Hamas Charter) or free for everyone and secular? Notice the various paradoxes but take a breath and don't give up yet.

Fifthly, consider what would happen if Israel unilaterally trashed its military, security services and stockpile of weapons. The Palestinians have received over 50bn USD in the last 20 years in international aid (mostly from the USA, EU, UK and Qatar). There has been no attempt to ensure that this huge amount (at some points up to x10 more than the largest amount per capita in aid ever received anywhere) has been received on the condition that the fighting must stop. Gangster para-militaries have enriched themselves, weapons have been purchased and smuggled in, and a huge network of tunnels has been constructed. Meanwhile two thirds of the population of Gaza exists well below the poverty line and it has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the world.

The Palestinian Authority is impotent there and the rule of Hamas can only be described as a hybrid of increasingly despotic Islamic fundamentalism. It is simply a freak show for oppression fetishists.

(Talking of which, at this juncture, one must try not to imagine greatly experienced orientalists robing themselves in a smoking jacket and collapsing into a chesterfield after a hard day's salivating over a copy of the Guardian, Jezza's twitter and the live Hamas tiktok stream of murder, rape and settling some scores with the Zionist foe, especially the babies, toddlers, disabled and bobbas abducted on a fleet of golf carts. As they sip from a glass of mint tea their minds surely turn to all those glorious, sweaty, peculiarly exhilarated, dusky young jihadis on motor bikes, fellow admirers of the Third Reich and indoctrinated in state-sponsored and promulgated Jew hate since childhood. Then there are those strange, exotic, terrified young Jewesses - Zio soldiers probably - beaten, raped, murdered and then mutilated. Suddenly the kitty snuggled between the orientalists' legs seems particularly warm and hairy and needs a good old scratch.)

If Israel stood down its security services, would the Palestinians take advantage of the aid they received and build a prosperous society (modelled on Israel itself, ironically)? Or would they prefer to pour over the border and cut every Jew's throat? Hmmn.

The answers should be 1A ,2A and for 4 - Zionism together with a free and prosperous dominion for the Palestinians. Achieving that would be possible. Yesterday brought an end to any potential two or three state solution but any future relationship between Israel, Saudi and the Sunni world could benefit all parties, except Iran.

It seems like a world war might have begun some time ago. Following yesterday's events, the next stage of this conflict is going to be horrific. The conflict following that would be with Iran, which might be lights out permanently. It'll be a pity if that happens, and irritating to think that if only someone had started this thread a few days ago we could have sorted out the whole shebang without anyone else getting hurt, let alone the use of nuclear weapons.

[Frogger]

We've not found a solution so far. I reckon that if we all put in the effort, we should get there in another 25 pages or so.

I'm willing to pitch in but the minute we enter a vortex of never ending circular arguments, I'm out.

An entirely understandable opinion.

But it is really quite simple.

First identify the optimal outcome. Is it A. - peace (a word the protagonists use relentlessly, in Arabic or Hebrew, in every single conversation they have)? And/or is it B. - a free Palestine?

Secondly, A. - consider what would happen if everyone in the West Bank and Gaza unilaterally trashed their stockpile of weapons. 2 - Determine what response would be in Israel's best interests.

Thirdly, understand the arguments and counter arguments. Simply bar the never ending, nugatory arguments about:

Jewish/Western colonialism;
Muslim/Arab/Ottoman colonialism;
the transmigrations of ethnic and national populations in the 20th century, right around the world;
the varying ethnographic and geographical origins of the protagonists;
the Soviet Union's invention of a Palestinian nation;
apartheid;
Israel's status as the only functional democracy in the Middle East with universal suffrage for all citizens regardless of their faith;
the Arab nationalists in the last Israeli cabinet;
treatment of women and homosexuals in West Bank and Gaza;
the Jewish ultra-orthodox treatment of women and homosexuals;
the colour of someone's skin;
Judah and Samaria;
the Balfour Declaration;
UN Resolution 181(II);
ownership of land;
settlements;
foreign aid to Israel;
the Shoah;
the historical persecution and subsequent migration of Jews throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East;
that Jews don't belong in any country in the world (and considering why that is);
that Jews apparently don't belong in Israel either;
the relative and comparable sizes of the Israel and the Muslim world;
whether Jordan is Palestine;
the Muslim's world's treatment and accommodation of Palestinians (especially in Syria and Lebanon);
Egypt's role along the western border of Gaza;
child-murdering;
manipulation of media to broadcast bogus, choreographed images of child murder; and,
so on - add your own.

Fourthly, consider the potential consequences of continuing with unreformed Zionism (that is: the right of a Jew to live in Israel) and a free Palestine, free from the river to the sea. Free of Jews (see the Hamas Charter) or free for everyone and secular? Notice the various paradoxes but take a breath and don't give up yet.

Fifthly, consider what would happen if Israel unilaterally trashed its military, security services and stockpile of weapons. The Palestinians have received over 50bn USD in the last 20 years in international aid (mostly from the USA, EU, UK and Qatar). There has been no attempt to ensure that this huge amount (at some points up to x10 more than the largest amount per capita in aid ever received anywhere) has been received on the condition that the fighting must stop. Gangster para-militaries have enriched themselves, weapons have been purchased and smuggled in, and a huge network of tunnels has been constructed. Meanwhile two thirds of the population of Gaza exists well below the poverty line and it has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the world.

The Palestinian Authority is impotent there and the rule of Hamas can only be described as a hybrid of increasingly despotic Islamic fundamentalism. It is simply a freak show for oppression fetishists.

(Talking of which, at this juncture, one must try not to imagine greatly experienced orientalists robing themselves in a smoking jacket and collapsing into a chesterfield after a hard day's salivating over a copy of the Guardian, Jezza's twitter and the live Hamas tiktok stream of murder, rape and settling some scores with the Zionist foe, especially the babies, toddlers, disabled and bobbas abducted on a fleet of golf carts. As they sip from a glass of mint tea their minds surely turn to all those glorious, sweaty, peculiarly exhilarated, dusky young jihadis on motor bikes, fellow admirers of the Third Reich and indoctrinated in state-sponsored and promulgated Jew hate since childhood. Then there are those strange, exotic, terrified young Jewesses - Zio soldiers probably - beaten, raped, murdered and then mutilated. Suddenly the kitty snuggled between the orientalists' legs seems particularly warm and hairy and needs a good old scratch.)

If Israel stood down its security services, would the Palestinians take advantage of the aid they received and build a prosperous society (modelled on Israel itself, ironically)? Or would they prefer to pour over the border and cut every Jew's throat? Hmmn.

The answers should be 1A ,2A and for 4 - Zionism together with a free and prosperous dominion for the Palestinians. Achieving that would be possible. Yesterday brought an end to any potential two or three state solution but any future relationship between Israel, Saudi and the Sunni world could benefit all parties, except Iran.

It seems like a world war might have begun some time ago. Following yesterday's events, the next stage of this conflict is going to be horrific. The conflict following that would be with Iran, which might be lights out permanently. It'll be a pity if that happens, and irritating to think that if only someone had started this thread a few days ago we could have sorted out the whole shebang without anyone else getting hurt, let alone the use of nuclear weapons.

This is far too long please summarise the above in no more than 2 sentences. Thanks

P.S. bet your thumbs are like bloody little stumps after that post

[Max B Gold]

But why does he not just say “yes, I condemn Hamas”?

Let’s assume he isn’t what he’s painted as by bad faith opponents. The question being asked is therefore an attempt to catch him out. The way to avoid the trap is to say “yes I condemn Hamas for the attack” and follow up by saying “that was implicit in my statement yesterday but I’m happy to make it clear”
The response he actually gives seems to actually legitimise the follow up questions he gets, because he’s both sidesing it by not replying unequivocally that of course he condemns Hamas.
With his answer remaining the “I condemn all violence” despite being pressed, he needlessly comes over as reluctant to criticise Hamas, when it would be very simple to not give his opponents the gotcha

Maybe he doesn't like the framing of the question and it's inbuilt bias and hates war and the targeting and massacre of innocent civilians.

[Daily Express bot]

In October 2023, does it really matter one iota what Jeremy Corbyn thinks? He is a spent man & an irrelevance.

Being my point. So why does our media go out of its way to find out what he thinks?

Because the Labour Party Conference is underway , he has been suspended from
the Labour Party for anti semitism and may say something controversial for a decent headline?