I thought that but hazard to put it down like cos I don't know Irans military off the top of my head. But I am a big believer in the UK armed forces. The budget is large and well spent on modern methods of warfare, logisitcs are done properly, troop movement and supplying is put as a priority (compare this with France who required British support to send troops to North Africa recently.) Modern missile technology up there with the US, planes literally taken from the US, a scientifically advanced fleet. It's all good jerk off material if youre into that stuff. One of the best bits of British propaganda is telling its citizens that theyre a poor and weak country. While spending gazillions on upgrading Challenger 2 tanks.
Appreciate the reply CK. And also appreciate you wanting to make observations only. The problem (and I think you’re failing to see this) is that it’s impossible to do so without making judgements and I’m afraid your posts have that throughout. I’m not knocking your intent btw, but for someone who doesn’t want to focus on the rights/wrongs you’ve posted a lot of what’s right and what’s wrong, just like anyone else including myself. With regards to the possible/impossible, where we disagree is the extent to which you think so much is impossible. I see a lot of obstacles to peace in your posts but no suggestion of how we move forward? This next bit isn’t aimed at you but my general observation - I’m a little tired of folk making excuses for why the status quo cannot be changed and how nothing can be done, whilst expressing how sorry they feel and how much they care. With the greatest respect, the Palestinians don’t want or need anyone’s pity - that won’t improve their lives. What they want and need is their freedom and to be afforded the justice they deserve based on the established international rule of law which already fully supports their position. 1) The Sheikh Jarrah Case I understood your point and took on board that you want to consider it in isolation and also your reference to Israeli law. My point was that firstly, you cannot look at it in isolation because it’s part of a wider systematic and cynical approach by Israel to displace the Palestinians. Approximately 300,000 Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem experience discrimination in access to education, health care, employment, residency and building rights. This is all based on Israeli law. They also suffer from expulsions and home demolitions, which serve the Israeli policy of “demographic balance” in favour of Jewish residents. This is also based on Israeli law. East Jerusalem Palestinians are classified as permanent residents. As permanent residents, they have no legal standing to challenge Israeli law. Moreover, openly identifying with Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory politically carries the risk of expulsion to the West Bank and loss of the right even to visit Jerusalem. So, they are caught inside a legal bubble that prevents its inhabitants’ lawful capacity to oppose, in effect, an apartheid regime. So how can you isolate the Sheikh Jarrad case when it’s part of a wider Israeli agenda to displace Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank? And how can you possibly expect the Palestinians to see it in isolation or the wider world for that matter? Or to justify it on the basis of it complying with Israeli law, when the law system in Israel is clearly discriminatory in the first place. My second point was that if Israel doesn’’t want to allow Palestinians to take back property taken by Israelis (for ALL the reasons you’ve stated to do with numbers etc), I could at least understand that, IF they applied the same condition on those Israelis who suffered the same fate in 1948-1950. So once again, there’s nothing to “understand” about what Israel’s doing here. They could simply say no to both. With regards to Jerusalem Day, I did state it just so happened to fall within Ramadan this year (and last year iirc) and that this can’t be helped. But what I said after this is correct – the extra security was nothing to do with large numbers of Palestinians due to Ramadan. This year, however, putting up barriers to Palestinians whilst allowing Israeli nationalists to march through East Jerusalem to the Damsacus Gate, to celebrate Jerusalem Day was clearly seen as yet more double standards and a provocation. That provocation then led to Israeli forces storming the Al-Aqsa compound which was fcking nuts in itself. (It’s so nuts that I suspect the whole thing was deliberately orchestrated by Netanyahu to make things kick off for political purposes - but let’s park that). Naturally this resulted in mass clashes between Palestinians and Israeli forces. It was only AFTER this had all happened, a day after iirc, that on the morning of the Jerusalem Day march, it was rerouted. By that time the damage was already done. I share your view that a lasting solution would almost certainly require an Israeli capital in West Jerusalem and a Palestinian one in East Jerusalem. But I think the fact that the U.S. moved its embassy to Jerusalem and recognised it as Israel’s spiritual capital (along with a couple of other countries) is yet another unilateral action which will make that even harder to achieve. And once again goes back to my point about seeing things in isolation (as far as East Jerusalem is concerned) being unrealistic. 2) Israeli/Palestinian Leadership I’m not factually incorrect about Israel’s electoral reforms - neither of us are, we’re just talking about 2 different things. The electoral reforms I was referring to came into effect in 1996 (after Rabin’s death) whereby the electorate for the first time were able to vote separately – for the Prime Minister and for representatives in the Knesset. The effect of this has been massively counter-productive and this is something highlighted by Israeli Studies and Israeli political commentators themselves, and has led directly to the instability in sustaining Israeli governments. Under the old law, the small parties could only pressure the big ones during the coalition formation process, and only if they were genuinely pivotal. Under the new rule, the small parties in general and the religious parties in particular, are virtually guaranteed the pivotal status. This change increases considerably the likelihood of small parties, in particular the religious, to having greater bargaining power. Also under the new law, over time voters have become familiar with the system and cast a ballot for the head of the party that leads the parliamentary block they prefer, and then vote for the party of their choice. This has led to added fragmentation in parliament as it steers voters to cast their vote to small parties instead of one of the biggest parties. This added fragmentation compounds the problems inherent in coalition governments in different ways. In answer to your point which is slightly separate, I’m afraid, the 3.25% threshold (or increasing it to 5%) is immaterial to this. This is further borne out by how smaller parties have become astute to this and joined together to form alliances to meet the threshold e.g. Yamina and Religious Zionism. As I said it’s a problem of Israel’s own making, it wasn’t deliberate and has just become an unforeseen fck up tbh. But the indirect consequence is it’s yet another setback in having strong leadership in Israel as far as the peace process is concerned. 3) The Palestinian Position With regards to Hamas, it’s a resistance movement which reflects a need the Palestinians find themselves in after almost 60 years of illegal occupation and apartheid rule. I’m afraid their approach is needed, as everything Israel has demonstrated – in word and in deed over this period shows that without a militant resistance movement, they would have found it much easier to assimilate the rest of the Palestinian territory as nobody (particularly the West) would’ve paid attention or importance to it. Regarding the Oslo Accord, if you go back and read my post again I specifically said Hamas was opposed to the Oslo Accords. But despite this it did in fact take a “wait and see” approach. It reduced its militant activities – not down to zero but significantly less so that it didn’t jeopardise the talks. And for the reasons I stated in my previous post. I’ve read the Hamas Charter already, CK. My point was that their position is never absolute and the fact they have shifted to even include the 1967 borders, shows that if they can shift to here then they can shift further. In short, it’s not as absolute as if often made out. The “go to” reference wasn’t aimed at you btw, probably poorly worded on my part, but it’s often a cheap comment made by politicians to write them off. Btw the idea of it being a ruse makes little sense if they’re still including the rest of their rhetoric about taking over the whole of the territory does it? The point is that throughout recent history such militant organisations, whether it was the ANC or the IRA/Sinn Fein or the PLO for that matter (and nothing you’ve said could not also be labelled against any of them), were often branded as terrorists, demonised and marginalised – labelled as completely incapable of having any dialogue with by the more powerful player. The things you point to in Hamas charter were not dissimilar to the PLO’s charter and only changed AFTER the Oslo Accords. The way the ANC treated those within the black community they considered traitors or a threat to their power is also well documented. These were all the case right up to and even after negotiations started. And yet in the end they had to be spoken to and included in order for the process towards peace to begin. And as has been borne out by these organisations, by doing so, the position of these militant groups shifts. I’m sorry if you object to talking to such people, but in the end, as history has shown, you have to talk to people you fundamentally disagree with to move forward. As I said previously, it is the starting point for any negotiation. I could go on and counter the rest of your arguments about Hamas but I’ll leave it there. Suffice to say, it’s easy for people who live under a blanket of freedom they take for granted to seek the moral high ground, I wouldn’t judge Hamas until I’ve walked a mile in their shoes. 4) The Two-State Solution Regarding the contiguous link, I don’t disagree with how you’ve said a road would link the two Palestinian territories, but a road is not Palestinian territory and certainly cannot be considered as splitting Israel in half as you stated in your first post, and that’s all I was highlighting. Agree the logistics of it will be a nightmare. Perhaps we could get the folk who’ve devised the current EU/UK border somewhere between Ireland, NI and the Irish Sea to get involved? Then again, maybe not eh! I want to sign off by emphasising one point here. I support the Palestinians, but I whole-heartedly support Israel’s right to exist and for there to be a two-state solution. That’s a damned sight better position to hold than some folk who fully support Israel to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians. I also hope (unlike some of the posts I’ve read foretelling eternal doom) if a peaceful settlement can be negotiated, that given time (it may take 2 or 3 generations afterwards) that the dialogue that will invariably grow between them as neighbouring states will encourage cultural, religious, trade links to be formed and both nations will flourish. Much like we’ve seen with many previous enemy nations in the world. Anyway good talking with you CK, peace
you can tell when the political pressure is mounting by the fact the heaviest night of Israeli strikes was last night . Which equates to "lads we ain't got much time to get our targets so plaster the biggers " .
