Middle East Conflict

Because I care what Nadhim Zahawi thinks.

It does show support for a terrorist organisation if said terrorist organisation uses it to mean the eradication of an entire nation and civilisation. If you use it, i'm going to judge you to be a person of shitty character. Simple as that. Its not illegal to be a ****, but you're still a **** for saying it.
So if Hamas start singing Blue Moon ?
They have taken a 75 year old (at least) saying on board and it suddenly becomes a criminal offence !
I have posted earlier why I personally use that phrase, it has nothing to do with the destruction of Israel, it is to highlight the stupidity of governments making sweeping statements.
What is the difference between Palestinians wanting all of the land and Israel taking it by force?
Judge me how you want. It is sad that people who support Israel have to hate everyone else. All I want is peace.
 
Last edited:
So if Hamas start singing Blue Moon ?
They have taken a 75 year old (at least) saying on board and it suddenly becomes a criminal offence !
I have posted earlier why I personally use that phrase, it has nothing to do with the destruction of Israel, it is to highlight the stupidity of governments making sweeping statements.
What is the difference between Palestinians wanting all of the land and Israel taking it by force?
Judge me how you want. It is said that people who support Israel have to hate everyone else. All I want is peace.
That's a dumb, dumb reasoning.
 
That's a dumb, dumb reasoning.
All of it ?
About my point that a government minister makes official statements that are so stupid, so unworkable, so impractical, but is now likely to be used by someone who makes a complaint to the police and who are duty bound to investigate it.
Or my point that what Israel is doing seems to be exactly what the Palestinians want so there will never be peace.
 
So if Hamas start singing Blue Moon ?
They have taken a 75 year old (at least) saying on board and it suddenly becomes a criminal offence !
I have posted earlier why I personally use that phrase, it has nothing to do with the destruction of Israel, it is to highlight the stupidity of governments making sweeping statements.
What is the difference between Palestinians wanting all of the land and Israel taking it by force?
Judge me how you want. It is sad that people who support Israel have to hate everyone else. All I want is peace.
That phrase has everything to do with the destruction of Israel and always has. There are mealy mouthed people who say otherwise but it's like saying it's ok to say "p**i" because originally it was an acceptable abbreviation of Pakistani. In this case the phrase has never meant anything different. I don't agree with making it illegal but it should be seen for what it is - a call for a Palestinian state between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea to replace what is there now.
 
All of it ?
About my point that a government minister makes official statements that are so stupid, so unworkable, so impractical, but is now likely to be used by someone who makes a complaint to the police and who are duty bound to investigate it.
Or my point that what Israel is doing seems to be exactly what the Palestinians want so there will never be peace.
The reasoning you're using a phrase that some consider offensive to an entire group of people purely because you disagree with a government ministers opinion of said phrase and their decision to cite it as an offensive phrase.

This is the hill you want to die on? Your 'right' to use a phrase others find offensive but you personally don't?
 
Last edited:
What I would say is that one common denominator in the world's mess is us.
The govt. After the first World War lied to the Palestinians.
After the second World War they lied to the Burmese govt, (who are now committing genocide on an unbelievable scale - and again nothing really said)
We decided which 'Arabs' could live where and who would rule that area - and we are still doing it- Syria, Iraq, etc.
Between us and the U.S. we haven't half fucked this world up.

All the benefits of a public school education, the ability to reach conclusions with absolute certainty and be sure of yourself despite being very ignorant of the specific subject and knowing fuck all.

Adam Curtis explores this in his latest documentary, the English upper classes superimposed their own ideas of "folkism" borrowed from English rural life onto a tribal society in Iraq after it became our protectorate after the first World War.

They had run out of cash, so couldn't carry out the huge work of surveying the landscape and learning about the cultural and social dynamics in depth.
 
Last edited:
The reasoning you're using a phrase that some consider offensive to an entire group of people purely because you disagree with a government ministers opinion of said phrase and their decision to cite it as an offensive phrase.

This is the hill you want to die on? Your 'right' to use a phrase others find offensive but you personally don't?
I accept a lot of that as I do not intend to cause offence to any person on here or in real life.
What I object to is this joke of a govt. minister basically banning free speech.
As it genuinely causes offence I will remove it.
What I will ask everyone who supports Israel, why do 'we' allow Israel to continue to illegally expand there state forcing innocent people out of their homes. What Israel is doing is what you are objecting to with the Palestinians aims.
 
All the benefits of a public school education, the ability to reach conclusions with absolute certainty and be sure of yourself despite being very ignorant of the specific subject and knowing fuck all.

Adam Curtis explores this in latest documentary, the English upper classes superimposed their own ideas of "folkism" borrowed from English rural life onto a tribal society in Iraq after it became our protectorate after the first World War.

They had run out of cash, so couldn't carry out the huge work of surveying the landscape and learning about the cultural and social dynamics in depth.
I wish I understood your post !
We lied to Burma we lied to the Palestinians, in fact Jews also say they were lied to by the British. We, with others carved up the Middle East.
Us and the US are still trying to dictate who runs countries we don't like.
Your middle paragraph is just weird.
 
I accept a lot of that as I do not intend to cause offence to any person on here or in real life.
What I object to is this joke of a govt. minister basically banning free speech.
As it genuinely causes offence I will remove it.
What I will ask everyone who supports Israel, why do 'we' allow Israel to continue to illegally expand there state forcing innocent people out of their homes. What Israel is doing is what you are objecting to with the Palestinians aims.
You'll find a lot of people that support the continued existance of Israel are highly critical of the Israeli government's actions towards the Palestinians, also want peace and a satisfactory resolution that does not result in the eradication of either.

But the politics between Israel and Palestine are not ours to dictate, so I don't know what you mean by 'we'. I'm trusting you do not support the also illegal action of firing rockets at Israeli neighbourhoods. Both sides of that particular conflict are not coming out of the situation looking particularly dignified. Its hard to call Palestinians the sole victims when some of their political members are calling for the complete extermination of Israel and Jews. Before you say anything, we also have MP's here to condemn the actions of Israel.

If you condemn one, you must condemn both otherwise your notions of seeking peace are rendered hollow and in truth you just advocate a total Palestinian 'victory'.
 
Last edited:
I wish I understood your post !
We lied to Burma we lied to the Palestinians, in fact Jews also say they were lied to by the British. We, with others carved up the Middle East.
Us and the US are still trying to dictate who runs countries we don't like.
Your middle paragraph is just weird.
"We"? I think you mean the "politicians of the time".

You really need to start disassociating the actions of politicians from the will of a nations people. Many of us didn't vote for those currently in power, or those from yesteryear who again, 'we' had no say in.

Otherwise we're back to, as an example, loading shame on modern Germans and the Japanese for the events of the Second World War, aren't we.
 
I wish I understood your post !
We lied to Burma we lied to the Palestinians, in fact Jews also say they were lied to by the British. We, with others carved up the Middle East.
Us and the US are still trying to dictate who runs countries we don't like.
Your middle paragraph is just weird.

Because you haven't seen the documentaries.

An interesting series but it has six episodes and all between 70-120 mins. Difficult to get the time stamp.



The important influence was Cecil Sharp, unfortunately the article doesn't discuss how it was used in the colonies, but here is a flavour of it.

"Take Brexit. Curtis outlines a fascinating history of a man named Cecil Sharp, a key leader in the English folk-song revival back in the early 1900s. Sharp travelled through England learning old rural dances; black and white footage shows Sharp and his companions prancing from leg to leg like fauns, the kind of ye olde English country dancing parodied by Julia Davis in her black comedy Hunderby.
“Sharp sort of invented the idea of folk music,” says Curtis. “And that’s not to say people didn’t sing songs. But this idea that there was this thing called the music of the folk, he sort of invented that, and he did it with this country dancing, and it’s so recent. And it was really a myth of England.”
Curtis deepens his analysis. Sharp drew on the volk of German nationalism. His aim was more ambitious, and sinister – responding to a fear of industrialised mass society, and the corruption of ascendant financial institutions, he intended to manufacture a new nationalism for the middle classes – a natural order extracted from England’s rolling hills. In other words, the impulse is Brexit: a retreat into a mythical version of the past. At that episode’s conclusion, Nigel Farage emerges from a tundra of blue, Brexit Party glow sticks.

“There’s a melancholy about the loss of the Empire, but really the roots of Brexit are in that sort of mythical, nostalgic idea of England, that was invented in those years, and then comes back up again in the Second World War,” Curtis says. “And it’s still there. You know, lots of my middle class friends have that nostalgia, you can see it.”
 
You'll find a lot of people that support the continued existance of Israel are highly critical of the Israeli government's actions towards the Palestinians, also want peace and a satisfactory resolution that does not result in the eradication of either.

But the politics between Israel and Palestine are not ours to dictate, so I don't know what you mean by 'we'. I'm trusting you do not support the also illegal action of firing rockets at Israeli neighbourhoods. Both sides of that particular conflict are not coming out of the situation looking particularly dignified. Its hard to call Palestinians the sole victims when some of their political members are calling for the complete extermination of Israel and Jews. Before you say anything, we also have MP's here to condemn the actions of Israel.

If you condemn one, you must condemn both otherwise your notions of seeking peace are rendered hollow and in truth you just advocate a total Palestinian 'victory'.
I condemn all violence.
 
"We"? I think you mean the "politicians of the time".

You really need to start disassociating the actions of politicians from the will of a nations people. Many of us didn't vote for those currently in power, or those from yesteryear who again, 'we' had no say in.

Otherwise we're back to, as an example, loading shame on modern Germans and the Japanese for the events of the Second World War, aren't we.
I do accept we are not the two faced govt. ministers that were in power at the time or currently. I was making the reference to how this countries politicians have caused so much bloodshed by lies over many many years.
 
I do accept we are not the two faced govt. ministers that were in power at the time or currently. I was making the reference to how this countries politicians have caused so much bloodshed by lies over many many years.
So charge their doings to them specifically, not to 'us' as a nation.
 
So anyone saying "from the river to the sea" could be reported to the police, but would it be a defence to cite Likud's original platform that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty"? Or the various Zionist groups who would regard "the land of Israel" as including both sides of the Jordan (there was even a song for that - though the original imagined a harmonious unity between the Arab, the Christian and the Jew", being more about the kingdom of Jordan as "artificial").

Though my country may be poor and small
It is mine from head to foot.
Stretching from the sea to the desert
And the Jordan, the Jordan in the middle.

Two Banks has the Jordan –
This is ours and, that is as well.

From the wealth of our land there shall prosper
The Arab, the Christian, and the Jew,
For our flag is a pure and just one
It will illuminate both sides of my Jordan.



The Jewish left in the States seems keen to find writers to explain that the "river to the sea" phrase "doesn't mean what you think it means", and others to cite Ben Gurion in 1947 (my italics):

"My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.

"When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land. This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.

"We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy – agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means."
 
Last edited:
"We"? I think you mean the "politicians of the time".

You really need to start disassociating the actions of politicians from the will of a nations people. Many of us didn't vote for those currently in power, or those from yesteryear who again, 'we' had no say in.

Otherwise we're back to, as an example, loading shame on modern Germans and the Japanese for the events of the Second World War, aren't we.
So we didn't win two world wars?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top