Middle East Conflict

In writing from the horses mouth.

No peace with these people. No interest in a 2 state proposal and answer.

Hamas are a clear and present danger to the state of Israel and its citizens and as such, they need wiping out.

The same goes for Hezbollah.

Interestingly many experts, governments and commentators at the time said this was Hamas accepting a two state solution although I’m not entirely convinced of that interpretation from the text.

I’m curious why you think Israel would accept a two state solution though. Let’s look at the evidence; we already have some sort of de-facto two state setup - yet there is no happy coexistence from either side. For example, Israeli settlers have long been an issue - moving in, attacking local Palestinians and destroying Palestinian crops (which they rely upon for food self sufficiency and income) all under the watchful eye of the IDF - this, one might be forgiven for thinking, is state sponsored. How do you even begin to reconcile that with an Israeli desire for a peaceful two state solution? Actions speak louder than words.
 
Surely Labour voters in favour of the Ceasefire especially the Muslim vote won't forget his stance on this at the Ballot box.
People tend to vote in GE as to how they are feeling domestically it’s a fact, the Muslim vote is as diverse as the population there are a fair few Muslim Tories, and Labour has deep ties with the Jewish community many of the early Labour pioneers were Jewish
 
In writing from the horses mouth.

No peace with these people. No interest in a 2 state proposal and answer.

Hamas are a clear and present danger to the state of Israel and its citizens and as such, they need wiping out.

The same goes for Hezbollah.
But you could equally say that about Israel and the treatment of Palestinians, where is this getting anyone?

Even you must realise that all Israel is doing is radicalising the population, meaning this is going to be a never ending cycle of violence

Also we run the risk of this igniting a wider conflict not just in the region but the world
 
Just for propaganda reasons imo.
There’s been a 9 year civil war there and this is just one of the belligerents posturing, and funnily enough it’s the Iranian backed Houthis. At its closest point it’s 1000 miles from Israel so they’re not going to do much.
Like I said earlier they are goading Israel to attack them, and then claim the the Gulf Countries are in hoc with the Israelis,which would be very damaging
 
Unfortunately mate religion is an undeniable part of all of this, so much blood has spilt in these lands in the name of religion over the centuries. Bonkers the lot of them.
Why concluding on religion only, when the 1948 massacre and gradual push of 750,000 humans to have their lands exiled out is because of culture.

Before 1920s, Palestine was a productive state with modernization, international trade, transport (including its railway around 1900, by Jews, Christians and Arabs. And then came Ben Gurion and that changed
 
But you could equally say that about Israel and the treatment of Palestinians, where is this getting anyone?

Even you must realise that all Israel is doing is radicalising the population, meaning this is going to be a never ending cycle of violence

Also we run the risk of this igniting a wider conflict not just in the region but the world

Israel is surrounded by enemies who want nothing more than to wipe them from the face of the Earth.

That has always been the case.

That was the case before this war started and will be the case long after it’s finished.

What exactly could Israel do that would enable them to live peacefully with its predominately Muslim neighbours?

I’m all ears?
 
No idea. I don't have detailed reports at hand, but it was a 20 year occupation. Think about how crazy that sounds. Occupying another country for two decades.

The initial stories around the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam has WMDs.

But you'd think many of those that weren't killed by direct military action eventually died from the destruction of the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated, all of which would be considered indirectly caused by the military action.

just for reference. and im only saying it because i've seen the 1.2m figure mentioned before and debunked. the numbers of death figures vary wildly. 1.2m is higher than all the highest estimates. from googling came from asking 2000 people if they knew people killed in the war and extrapolating up, depending on where they asked that could result in wildly different results ( IE, asking in Bagdad or Fallujah vs outer lying towns etc )

the official figures are about 200k.


and when you look at the years, Most of those deaths and destruction in Iraq were caused by insurgents and the Birth of ISIS trying to take over the half of Iraq and Syria rather than direct US military action.

Dont get me wrong, the whole birth of ISIS was caused by this war so really can count. as can what happend in Syria. Ironically it was actually the US starting to walk away that caused ISIS. they let people out of prison they shouldn't' have and they started ISIS.

I was against the Iraq war and still am, the whole thing was a mess. all of this can be traced back the invasion but the idea that the US directly killed 1.2m in Iraq ( which is what the figure is usually expressed as, not directly by you ) which they really didnt.
 

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.