Current Affairs Labour and Anti Semitism.......

[Tubey]

We cannot have a two state solution. It simply cannot happen.

OK, what's your solution then?

And similarly...

A return to their land, houses, business etc. is the only rightful course to take to right the injustice they suffered since 1948.

Sound. How would you go about doing that? Real world time rather than theory - how do you eject 8.5m people - many second and third/fourth generation Israelis who had nothing to do with how they got there - from a nuclear weapon enabled nation with the support of western powers; preferably a solution that doesn't result in a definite World War 3 and the deaths of possibly billions of people?

Because that's the issue here. You can moan all you like about the ifs and buts of a situation but if you have no actionable solution for it and instead your answer is to bang on about how 'wrong' the situation is instead of compromising and settling it, then what the hell is the point?

 

[tsubaki]

We cannot have a two state solution. It simply cannot happen.

I think the plausiblity of a two state solution is amply demonstrated by the efforts Bibi et al have made to make it impossible. It could have existed if Rabin hadn't been assassinated and could still work now if people had the commitment to it.

 

[hullefc]

It is, but my point was that the right of return is not something that could never be negotiated away. The absence of a process - fair or otherwise - does not mean that the positions people now hold are for forever.

And it doesn't mean that the right to return positions aren't held forever as we have seen across the water in Ireland with the republican movement. Where the republican movement endorsed a 'negotiated settlement' but had the caveat of a vote for a united Ireland, which was acceptable for the republican movement at the time. That is until they feel the need to push for a united vote and Brexit and May's and the Tories shenanigans brings that nearer. But they have never given up on a united Ireland a fixed position, the debate was always around how to achieve that goal. The republican movement has ebbed and flowed throughout the history of British occupation but a united Ireland has never been completely wiped out as the final objective.

Similarly with Palestinians as we see in the march of return demonstrations with the Palestinian baton taken up by this younger generation. Their fixed position is the right to return. Those occupying Palestine have no incentive to 'negotiate' at the moment as the get the full backing of the US. However, the dynamics in the area are changing and it is no coincidence that the latest 'march of return' has been emboldened by Assad's victory in Syria assisted by the Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranians. The new baton holders will take a course that they see fit at the moment.

 

[Blue 1]

The two state solution is dead. Israel isn't going to evacuate the remaining settlers from the West Bank even if the Palestinians agreed to Israel annexing the larger, less ideological settlements that are contiguous to Israel like Har Homa, Pisgat Ze'ev etc. in aome kind of land swap. Neither will the settlers, for the most part, wish to live in any future Palestinian state, should the Palestinians even agree to take them. The number of settlers has doubled since the time of Arafat and Rabin if I remember right.

Then there's Jerusalem, the RoR etc...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It’s far from clear but you’re qualified to announce labour won’t be winning a general election under his leadership. Erm okay.

Labour could win the next election without it being down to Corbyn, yes. In fact they should win the next election purely on account of the Tories being god awful, and there being frankly no other horse in the race. In a 2 horse race where one of them is Theresa May, it's not exactly Ghandi like to win, is it?

It's worth remembering that in areas where there is a more natural alternative (Wales and Scotland), Labour didn't regain their previous strength in the last election. They're perhaps a bigger indicator of how effective Corbyn was.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I wasn't saying the IHRA definition should be rejected, I was saying that arguing whether Israel has a right to exist is absurd given that it exists.

It's not really absurd given that the existence of a 'state' is quite a common debate across history. Palestine exists, but it's existence as a state is not recognised by everyone is it.

 

[hullefc]

OK, what's your solution then?

And similarly...



Sound. How would you go about doing that? Real world time rather than theory - how do you eject 8.5m people - many second and third/fourth generation Israelis who had nothing to do with how they got there - from a nuclear weapon enabled nation with the support of western powers; preferably a solution that doesn't result in a definite World War 3 and the deaths of possibly billions of people?

Because that's the issue here. You can moan all you like about the ifs and buts of a situation but if you have no actionable solution for it and instead your answer is to bang on about how 'wrong' the situation is instead of compromising and settling it, then what the hell is the point?

What. The issue here!! So If the Palestinians get their land back it will be their fault for world war 3. Incredible.

The United Nations allowed the land to be taken off the Palestinians by the point of a gun. The displaced now number 7 million living in some of the worse camps going. They get humiliated constantly, shot at to wound so it will drain the medical facilities and medicines, now have the little money they get for the US cut off because they are protesting - 'that'll teach them a lesson', constantly killed at the whim of the IDF etc. etc. etc. To them they are involved in world war 3. If it looks like war then it is war. But because that may spread if they are allowed back, so they should stop complaining, then. And accept that you'll never get your homeland back.

I'll ask again. Who determines the 'compromise' and what is it ? So as to settle this issue.

Why does any country or people stand up for their rights? Because it is just. But not the Palestinians because it might lead to world war 3. The whole history of the anti colonial struggle has been a fight against a superior army that caused death and destruction and at any time since the second world war could have lead to world war 3. Vietnam springs to mind. Maybe the Vietcong shouldn't have fought and 'compromised' to settle the issue i.e US occupation of their country. Real world, real world solution.

The United Nations has a duty to solve this problem they caused. But the Palestinians know from 80 years of struggle they will not so are forced to take their own route to try and reclaim their land. And for that they get castigated. For that they get further humiliation. For that there is a threat of World War 3.But maybe they should give up because it might lead to 'world war 3'.

It is up to the Palestinians to determine what will settle this issue, when they have their homeland back.

 

[Tubey]

What. The issue here!! So If the Palestinians get their land back it will be their fault for world war 3. Incredible.

The United Nations allowed the land to be taken off the Palestinians by the point of a gun. The displaced now number 7 million living in some of the worse camps going. They get humiliated constantly, shot at to wound so it will drain the medical facilities and medicines, now have the little money they get for the US cut off because they are protesting - 'that'll teach them a lesson', constantly killed at the whim of the IDF etc. etc. etc. To them they are involved in world war 3. If it looks like war then it is war. But because that may spread if they are allowed back, so they should stop complaining, then. And accept that you'll never get your homeland back.

I'll ask again. Who determines the 'compromise' and what is it ? So as to settle this issue.

Why does any country or people stand up for their rights? Because it is just. But not the Palestinians because it might lead to world war 3. The whole history of the anti colonial struggle has been a fight against a superior army that caused death and destruction and at any time since the second world war could have lead to world war 3. Vietnam springs to mind. Maybe the Vietcong shouldn't have fought and 'compromised' to settle the issue i.e US occupation of their country. Real world, real world solution.

The United Nations has a duty to solve this problem they caused. But the Palestinians know from 80 years of struggle they will not so are forced to take their own route to try and reclaim their land. And for that they get castigated. For that they get further humiliation. For that there is a threat of World War 3.But maybe they should give up because it might lead to 'world war 3'.

It is up to the Palestinians to determine what will settle this issue, when they have their homeland back.

That's the reality of the situation. If you do a 'simple' reversal and give them the land back, Israel - a nuclear-enabled power - won't just sit on their hands and accept it.

You see things in black and white. You just expect a wrong to be reversed into a right because it's the right thing to do, and ignore the geopolitical realities of the situation. By fixing that wrong, you don't realise you're doing something equally wrong - displacing 8 million people. Two wrongs don't make a right and in this situation the second wrong would be impossible and mean inevitable war.

As for who determines the compromise, it's going to be a collective global effort, probably through the UN, when both sides come to the table. There's no other 'out' for this now. With Palestine having the moral upper hand, the negotiation will probably be a 'reverse land grab' resembling the 1967 borders, but there's no going back to 1948 - it's an impossibility. It won't happen any time soon, but it will be the ultimate solution.

That scenario is infinitely more likely than yours, which isn't a solution at all - it's instead a perpetual problem.

 

[Jib in lad]

 

[magicjuan]

OK, what's your solution then?

And similarly...



Sound. How would you go about doing that? Real world time rather than theory - how do you eject 8.5m people - many second and third/fourth generation Israelis who had nothing to do with how they got there - from a nuclear weapon enabled nation with the support of western powers; preferably a solution that doesn't result in a definite World War 3 and the deaths of possibly billions of people?

Because that's the issue here. You can moan all you like about the ifs and buts of a situation but if you have no actionable solution for it and instead your answer is to bang on about how 'wrong' the situation is instead of compromising and settling it, then what the hell is the point?

The settlers haven't been innocent. Israel won't change until the enabling support it recieves is removed. All else would follow. So it isn't a case of pressure on Israel so much as pressure on its supporters and allies and 'business partners'. Ditto Saudi Arabia.

 

[peteblue]

 

[tsubaki]

That's the reality of the situation. If you do a 'simple' reversal and give them the land back, Israel - a nuclear-enabled power - won't just sit on their hands and accept it.

You see things in black and white. You just expect a wrong to be reversed into a right because it's the right thing to do, and ignore the geopolitical realities of the situation. By fixing that wrong, you don't realise you're doing something equally wrong - displacing 8 million people. Two wrongs don't make a right and in this situation the second wrong would be impossible and mean inevitable war.

As for who determines the compromise, it's going to be a collective global effort, probably through the UN, when both sides come to the table. There's no other 'out' for this now. With Palestine having the moral upper hand, the negotiation will probably be a 'reverse land grab' resembling the 1967 borders, but there's no going back to 1948 - it's an impossibility. It won't happen any time soon, but it will be the ultimate solution.

That scenario is infinitely more likely than yours, which isn't a solution at all - it's instead a perpetual problem.

It absolutely has to be the focus of genuine negotiation, but it would never be a perpetual problem - they (Israelis and Palestinians) live on the world's favourite battlefield.

 

[Jib in lad]

View attachment 49473

More disparaging nonsense from you there's a surprise.

 

[tsubaki]

Labour could win the next election without it being down to Corbyn, yes. In fact they should win the next election purely on account of the Tories being god awful, and there being frankly no other horse in the race. In a 2 horse race where one of them is Theresa May, it's not exactly Ghandi like to win, is it?

It's worth remembering that in areas where there is a more natural alternative (Wales and Scotland), Labour didn't regain their previous strength in the last election. They're perhaps a bigger indicator of how effective Corbyn was.

That is very dubious last point Bruce - yes, they didn't go back to the days when both of them were seas of red but they did far better than 2015 (especially in Wales).

 

[peteblue]

More disparaging nonsense from you there's a surprise.

It was a simpler way of describing how the Labour Party are actively addressing the issue......