That’s the thing. When you don’t have skin in the game you can pretend a world where we all sing Kumbaya together is possible. I wish it was but I’m taking the bad option over the worse option. I do have a lot of hate though. You would too.
You’d given up ten minutes ago but fine. I hate that after generations of Jews being at the forefront of anti-racism we were completely abandoned, at best, by the vast majority of the Left, academics and other groups I considered generally sane and people I had common ground with. The skin in the game I have, apart from having friends in Israel, is that if the **** really, really hit the fan here it’s somewhere I can go and stay alive. I’m not saying I think that will happen and I’ve no plans to go anywhere but if it’s all the same to you I’d quite like that haven to exist. I wouldn’t mind so much if so many otherwise quite rational people weren’t so readily drawn in by such simple propaganda and old tropes.
You can exist wherever you like. Just don't assume you should to be able to kick other people out of their homes to make your haven. Jews have been treated horrendously in the past, but that doesn't entitle them to treat other people in a similar way. Jews are not the poor oppressed in today's World.
And therein lies the problem - no common ground between either "side"....and as long as this continues there'll never be peace in the middle east. I try to take a more neutral view, as an outsider, so don't have skin in either camp. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and other Islamuc groups mainly exist due to Iran - rid the world of this despotic regime and their funding from inside Saudi, Qatar and other Arab states and things might have a chance in 20 years or so. Their actions are despicable, as are those that celebrated the events of 7th October. Israels response has been excessive, although militarily I can see the reasoning behind it. Israel get away with a lot - if this had happened in the Balkans (similar to what occured in the 90s) I'm sure internationsl condemnation would have been universal, but nations seem to tiptoe around Israel for fear of offending then and their US backers. There is no easy solution - the two state solution was offered to Arafat years ago, and he turned it down. The Saudis are trying to bring some form of stability by doing a deal to recognise Israel as a state with US support, which is a start, but this is what has riled Iran and led to the current situation. It's ****ed up, and all the arguing and pointing fingers here aint gonna solve anything
Probably not wherever I like. I’m not going to do Balfour and the whole last 80 years with you back and forth at this time of night but it’s bollocks. They gambled on war and lost more than once. They’ve been offered phenomenal deals despite that as Steels alluded to and turned them down. Millions of non-Jews live in Israel, represent its sports teams, sit in Parliament, fight in its army etc. It’s an infinitely more welcoming, secular and frankly normal society than your Twitter feed would have you believe.
The world would be a much nicer place if everyone respected international borders. Imagine, Hamas could concentrate on blowing up Gaza instead of invading Israel, Russia could send it's drones to St Petersburgh instead of Kyiv, Houthis could blow up Sanaa instead og aiming missiles at Saudi Arabia, and the yanks could concentrate on sticking a nuke up Trumps fat arse.
I think this is why I was bemoaning the lack of discourse on this thread, Steelsy. Of course our conversations on here can't of solve anything in themselves, but perhaps an accumulation of a million similar conversations might make a difference in understanding.
This turned up in the news today... The unseen map that promised to bring peace to the Middle East please log in to view this image Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented a two-state solution in 2008 Paul Adams Diplomatic correspondent "In the next 50 years, you will not find one Israeli leader that will propose to you what I propose to you now. "Sign it! Sign it and let's change history!" It was 2008. Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was imploring the Palestinian leader to accept a deal he believed could have brought peace to the Middle East. It was a two-state solution - a prospect which seems impossible today. If implemented, it would have created a Palestinian state on more than 94% of the occupied West Bank. The map Olmert had drawn up now has an almost mythical status. Various interpretations have appeared over the years, but he has never revealed it to the media. Until now. please log in to view this image Ehud Olmert's map of his two-state solution, with Israeli and Palestinian states side by side In Israel and the Palestinians: The Road to 7th October, the latest series from documentary filmmaker Norma Percy available on iPlayer from Monday, Olmert reveals the map he says he showed to Mahmoud Abbas at a meeting in Jerusalem on 16 September 2008. "This is the first time that I expose this map to the media," he tells the filmmakers. It shows, in detail, the territory which Olmert proposed to annexe to Israel - 4.9% of the West Bank. That would have included major Jewish settlement blocs - just like previous proposals dating back to the late 1990s. In return, the prime minister said Israel would give up an equal amount of Israeli territory, along the edges of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The two Palestinian territories would be connected via a tunnel or highway – again, something that had been discussed before. In the film, Olmert recalls the Palestinian leader's response. "He said: 'Prime minister, this is very serious. It is very, very, very serious.'" Crucially, Olmert's plan included a proposed solution to the thorny issue of Jerusalem. Each side would be able to claim parts of the city as their capital, while administration of the "holy basin" - including the Old City, with its religious sites, and adjacent areas - would be handed over to a committee of trustees consisting of Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the US. The implications of the map, for Jewish settlements, would have been colossal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g0dv7rxxvo Program is on BBC2 at 9pm tonight, should be an interesting watch
looks like a good deal for trump Zelenskyy agrees to US minerals deal after Trump rows back demands Joe Barnes and Memphis Barker February 26, 2025 •10:54am Share please log in to view this image Play Video 0:36 Trump says Zelenskyy may visit White House to sign deal Ukraine has agreed to a US-proposed deal for the rights to its mineral wealth after the Trump administration dropped its most extreme demands. According to reports, Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, will travel to Washington to sign a pact with the White House as early as this week to jointly develop its natural resources, including rare earths, oil and gas. The draft deal does not require Ukraine to commit to repaying the United States up to US$500 billion (NZ$873b) from the potential revenue. Instead, Kyiv will contribute 50 per cent of the funds raised by future developments of minerals and energy reserves, according to a draft of the agreement seen by the Financial Times. READ MORE FROM STUFF Man jailed for ‘inexplicable’ sexual offending towards infant and toddlerPaddy Gower: PM was giving off world-class waffleTrump’s moves spark Europe emergency meeting over Ukraine The US will not gain the rights to any of Ukraine’s existing oil or gas production. The agreement follows a war of words between Zelenskyy and Trump, who last week called his counterpart a “dictator” who needed to cut a quick peace deal or lose his country. ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISE WITH STUFF ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISE WITH STUFF The Ukrainian president had refused to sign up to a deal that he said was unfair on his nation, incurring repayments for the next “10 generations”. He had also held out for firm security guarantees from the US against future Russian aggression. The deal does not contain any specific US security guarantees, but Ukrainian officials have described it as a way to weave America into a stake in the country’s stability and future survival. Reuters news agency said Ukraine’s cabinet was expected on Wednesday (local time) to recommend that the deal be signed. A senior Ukrainian official, cited by AFP news agency, said the deal could be signed in Washington by Zelenskyy as early as Friday. “There will be a chance for the president to discuss what the bigger picture is [in terms of security]. And then after it, we will be able to think of the next steps,” an official told the Financial Times. Critics of Washington’s proposals had accused Trump of trying to extort Ukraine and strongarm the war-torn nation into signing the deal. please log in to view this image The agreement follows a war of words between Zelenskyy and Trump, who last week called his counterpart a “dictator” who needed to cut a quick peace deal or lose his country.JULIA DEMAREE NIKHINSON / AP News that the deal had been agreed came amid reports that the European Union is pushing for its own deal to share Ukraine’s mineral wealth. Stephane Sejourne, the bloc’s industry commissioner, quietly pushed Europe’s alternative deal on a visit to Kyiv to mark the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion. ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISE WITH STUFF ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISE WITH STUFF “Twenty-one of the 30 critical materials Europe needs can be provided by Ukraine in a win-win partnership,” the French eurocrat said after a meeting with Ukrainian officials. He added: “The added value Europe offers is that we will never demand a deal that’s not mutually beneficial.” Sejourne’s comments are likely to be interpreted by Washington as an attempt to muscle in on the US president’s proposed deal. Any attempts by Brussels to hijack the deal will likely further exacerbate transatlantic tensions over Trump’s efforts to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. On Tuesday, the European Commission sought to play down the comments made by Sejourne, claiming there had been “no proposal” tabled at his meetings in Kyiv. A spokesman said he was referring to a Memorandum of Understanding between Brussels and Kyiv on critical materials signed in 2021. “This is about cooperation with Ukraine, not competition with the US,” the spokesman added. Critics of Washington’s proposals have accused Trump of trying to extort Ukraine and strongarm the war-torn nation into signing the deal. ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISE WITH STUFF ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISE WITH STUFF The proposed US-Ukraine minerals deal is likely to offer one of the clearest insights in how the war-torn country could be carved up as part of any peace settlement. Many of Ukraine’s mineral deposits are in territory currently occupied by Russian forces. Putin open to granting US access to rare earths On Monday, Vladimir Putin said he would be open to granting the US access to rare earths in both Russia and occupied Ukraine. The Russian president said his country “undoubtedly have, I want to emphasise, significantly more resources of this kind than Ukraine”. “As for the new territories, it’s the same. We are ready to attract foreign partners to the so-called new, to our historical territories, which have returned to the Russian Federation,” he added. Trump is likely to be buoyed by his Russian counterpart’s comments because of fears China could have demanded access to Russia’s rare earths as a price for its wartime support. Moscow and Beijing have become increasingly close allies and have cemented that by signing a “no limits” alliance pact. ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISE WITH STUFF ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISE WITH STUFF In his first stint in the White House, Trump sought to restrict China’s access to advanced technology such as semiconductors and electric vehicles. Many rare earths and minerals beneath Ukraine and Russia provide core materials for the production of these technologies.
I said at the weekend that this was a good bargaining chip for Zelensky...if he can tie in security promises with the deal then these may help ease tensions between the US and Ukraine, and lead to some positive peace negotiations with Russia
