Middle East Conflict (merged) | Iran launch missile attack after Israel invade Lebanon

Prestwich_Blue said:
But it had been a decent thread that hadn't resorted to name calling or the other rubbish we usually get in these threads until a bunch of knuckle-draggers turned up who refuse to engage in reasoned discussion and started with the personal insults against me and west didsblue.
Click to expand...

An yet you feel able to call me "Wankstain" because I disagreed with your view of the world, well ain`t you a cleaver boy.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The IHRA has 31 member countries, and 11 observer or liaison countries. And even if what you say is true, the UK has adopted it (as has the Greater Manchester Combined authority) so it's quite legitimate to use it.
Click to expand...

IHRA does has 31 member countries, they make great store of that, but less so of the fact that only eight countries have adopted its definition of anti-Semitism, interestingly the USA is not one of them.

The definition is not without controversy and the UK's adoption of it does not have cross party support. If legitimacy comes from broad acceptance there is nothing legitimate about it at all.

The UAE is one of the 34 countries with no diplomatic relations with Israel, Israeli passport-holders cannot legally enter the country. The UAE, like most other Arab states, has not recognised Israel since the Arab-Israeli conflict began in 1948. This is official government policy. By the IHRA definition the UAE is a deeply anti-Semitic state and the Deputy Prime Minister of that country is the owner of Manchester City.

Eihad, the sponsor on our shirt and our stadium has an official travel-route map of the Middle East, including Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Cyprus — but not Israel or its major cities.

If, as you say, Greater Manchester has adopted the IHRC definition of anti-Semitism, it has not prevented them from becoming deeply involved with the Sheikh in developing huge swathes of East Manchester.

You are a season ticket holder I believe, but the club is owned by an Emirati politician who supports policies, that, by the IHRA definition are anti-Semitic....

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

I'm a season ticket holder as well, it would seem we're passively involved in promoting a deeply anti-Semitic state.
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
IHRA does has 31 member countries, they make great store of that, but less so of the fact that only eight countries have adopted its definition of anti-Semitism, interestingly the USA is not one of them.

The definition is not without controversy and the UK's adoption of it does not have cross party support. If legitimacy comes from broad acceptance there is nothing legitimate about it at all.

The UAE is one of the 34 countries with no diplomatic relations with Israel, Israeli passport-holders cannot legally enter the country. The UAE, like most other Arab states, has not recognised Israel since the Arab-Israeli conflict began in 1948. This is official government policy, by the IHRA definition the UAE is a deeply anti-Semitic state and the Deputy Prime Minister of that country is the owner of Manchester City.

Eihad, the sponsor on our shirt and our stadium has an official travel-route map of the Middle East, including Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Cyprus — but not Israel or its major cities.

If, as you say, Greater Manchester has adopted the IHRC definition of anti-Semitism, it has not prevented them from becoming deeply involved with the Sheikh in developing huge swathes of East Manchester.

You are a season ticket holder I believe, but the club is owned by an Emirati politician who supports policies, that, by the IHRA definition are anti-Semitic....

"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

I'm a season ticket holder as well, it would seem we're passively involved in promoting a deeply anti-Semitic state.
Click to expand...
Israel actually has very good relations with the UAE. They're just not official.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Israel actually has very good relations with the UAE. They're just not official.
Click to expand...

You're right.

That's why definitions have to handled with care. The oil rich Gulf states pay lip service to the Palestinian cause and everyone on the QT knows it.

My criticism of you is you will entertain the nuanced approach when it suits you and the absolutist when it does not.
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
You're right.

That's why definitions have to handled with care. The oil rich Gulf states pay lip service to the Palestinian cause and everyone on the QT knows it.

My criticism of you is you will entertain the nuanced approach when it suits you and the absolutist when it does not.
Click to expand...
I'd counter that by saying that my overall view is nuanced. I certainly don't believe that one side is completely at fault and the other is 100% right. That's reflected in many of my posts. But when people like blueonblue come out with some of the rubbish he has, then it becomes absolutist. The lower the leve lof detail, the more absolutist I tend to be. I don't think there's any inconsistency there.

And on this specific matter - the Gaza protests - I've changed my position somewhat. My initial reaction was to unconditionally blame the IDF for its typically heavy-handed reaction to the Gaza protests. But the more I've read, included completely unbiased and nuanced sources, the more I've realised the protests were a cynical PR exercise by Hamas to shore up its position vis-a-vis the PA, Egypt & its financial backers. The overwhelming majority of deaths were Hamas and Islamic Jihad members. At least 54 of the 62.

Now I still think the actions of the IDF were unnecessary in most (but not all) cases. They've allowed Hamas to take the political initiative and moral high-hround. If Israel was cleverer and more subtle in its response then they would have denied Hamas that. But Netanyahu, unlike Ismael Haniyeh, isn't an absolute leader. He has a coalition and electorate to answer to and couldn't afford to look weak. Unusually, most of the Israeli political spectrum backed him on this.
 
A few clips of the protest surfacing in social media.

Here's one showing the challenges faced by medics. I read abit more and this clip seems to be from last year's protest.

 
Here's another, of a peaceful protest by middle aged men with flags, being shot in the leg. A medic came to help but he was shot in the leg too.



There are other videos out and about, some very gruesome, like a Palestinian 700m from the border getting sniped in the head while talking to his friends. Videos of unarmed and cowering protestors far from the border being shot in the head, too gory to share here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.