news & politics:discussion

[pink_triangle]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I think some BBC journalists and US papers were insinuating it was Israel shortly after the explosion.

If that’s the case maybe people should stick to online like me! They definitely stated claim from Hamas (automatic alarm bells) and waiting for confirmation.

[pink_triangle]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

I mean up until then Israel had dropped something like 6000 bombs on Gaza already, so it is not that wild an assumption that this was an Israeli bomb, but yes people should be careful throwing round accusations when situation so delicate.

We were always taught as historians we have to question and think. What was the motive for Israel to blow up a hospital. I mean I wouldn’t rule it out, but I think we take a step back. Social media dictates we need answers now, but sometimes waiting is ok.

[mattiloy]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

If that’s the case maybe people should stick to online like me! They definitely stated claim from Hamas (automatic alarm bells) and waiting for confirmation.

It was also immediately claimed by an aide to Netanyahu in a later deleted tweet.

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Except it has been the strategic position of all neighbouring arab nations for ages. Yes it makes palestinian refugees pawns but evidently not losing what little land is left is a greater priority for them. Not that I agree with it, but thats what is going on. Nothing to do with squirrelarmy’s racist suggestion that its because Palestinians are extremist troublemakers by nature.
 

As for the settlers- the settlement movement is decentralised. Its not about what the israeli govt want, if the land is cleared of people, these hardline religious settler groups will move in. Then the govt will have to protect them if there is resistance so the settlement becomes de facto part of israel. Until the whole of gaza is subsumed. Just like in the west bank. 

There were settlers in Gaza relatively recently and Israel had to go in and physically kick them out, I don't think Israel will allow that to happen again...but who knows...

[mattiloy]

10 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

There were settlers in Gaza relatively recently and Israel had to go in and physically kick them out, I don't think Israel will allow that to happen again...but who knows...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza
 

Just read about it. Fascinating. Sharon did it because otherwise it would mean eventually absorbing the gazans into the israeli state- which would make it impossible for it to continue as both a ’democratic’ and jewish state.

The thing now though is that if the palestinians leave gaza, with as is the case, no right of return, then its problem solved. You get the land without the people. Its sick.

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

maybe the plan is evacuate N Gaza, go in and wipe out Hamas, leave.

Obviously some flaws.

[pink_triangle]

22 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

It was also immediately claimed by an aide to Netanyahu in a later deleted tweet.

I only read bbc news, maybe the lesson is to take multiple sources. However interestingly I did see one left commentator (think Bastani but not sure) literally in the week before saying how he would only take news sources from particular agencies and then ignoring his own advice!

[squirrelarmy]

27 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Nothing to do with squirrelarmy’s racist suggestion that its because Palestinians are extremist troublemakers by nature.

You need to educate yourself on the difference between race and religion. 
 

Just look at the historical facts. Black September triggered by Palestinians against Jordan. Ethnically the same race but the war was fundamentally about which branch of the Muslim religion was the right one. 
 

Lebanese civil war was again not between two races but a religious war between Christian’s and Muslims. You know who was the aggressor again in that case.  
 

I have no issue with people’s race. I’m not a fan of religious extremism though and that applies to all religions  

 

[mattiloy]

9 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

You need to educate yourself on the difference between race and religion. 
 

Just look at the historical facts. Black September triggered by Palestinians against Jordan. Ethnically the same race but the war was fundamentally about which branch of the Muslim religion was the right one. 
 

Lebanese civil war was again not between two races but a religious war between Christian’s and Muslims. You know who was the aggressor again in that case.  
 

I have no issue with people’s race. I’m not a fan of religious extremism though and that applies to all religions  

 

Right, but you are characterising an entire people as extremist troublemakers.

Would you also refuse to accept palestinian refugees to the uk?

What about palestinian christians? Are they also extremist troublemakers?

Edited October 19, 2023 by mattiloy

[fraybentos1]

6 hours ago, Neil said:

I don't like doing it by c**tface follows me around to harness me I can't callhim out for it if he doesn't do it.

I don’t mind you despising me but I think bringing your disability into it is low and uncalled for. 
 

Yesterday I did not interact with you until you quoted me 3 times. Then you started saying I was following you. Makes no sense 

[steviewevie]

aren't there already loads of Palestinians living outside Palestine/Israel...especially Jordan?

[mattiloy]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

aren't there already loads of Palestinians living outside Palestine/Israel...especially Jordan?

Whats your point? That the remainder should just move to a friendly country.

Maybe you’re right. But then surely they should be compensated. The Israeli settlers were compensated $200k each with the disengagement from gaza. Whats a fair sum for giving up your property and leaving your country permenently? Shall we say $200k each for 5 odd mil palestinians?

Would probably do it right? But would cost over a trillion dollars. Much cheaper to just make life as uncomfortable as possible for them until they cant bare it anymore.

[mattiloy]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

Bit tin foil hat of you this.  There are people from all nationalities and regions in the Gaza who take up arms.  

Its an aide to Netanyahu.

I’m just pointing out that it is impossible to determine between claim and counter claim because neither side has any credibility and its obviously in both sides interest to blame the others.

[cellar]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I agree it’s a problem with people taking responsibility, my point was them trying to use the media to deflect from themselves. 
 

However I disagree with your second point on people not jumping to conclusions based on anything other than the events. I say this because if Israel had been first out to pin the blame on Hamas, many of the same people would have just assumed it not to be true. So people preconceived views are playing a big role here.

Also not everyone just took it as true, I know as I was one of them! The (many years ago) GCSE history student in me  said can I trust the source? Hmmm Hamas could there be any scope for bias? Then when it said we are unable to confirm these claims, my initial thought was let’s wait for confirmation. We can talk about fast news, but there is nothing wrong with taking “I don’t know approach “ and waiting for new information.

As I said earlier I fear the left could be getting as bad as the right with a belief of fake news. Take Corbyn he tweets about the Israeli attack on the hospital. Evidence comes out that this may not be the case, no tweet deleted, no follow up. I would criticise the right for this, so the left deserve the same.

If an attack happened in Israel, people would assume its Hamas. They're in a conflict - if some sort of loss of life as a result of a bomb or whatever happens, the assumption is naturally going to be that the other side caused it. As new information comes to light you can take it on board. You saying that if Israel had said right away that it was Hamas that there would be scepticism, of course there would be - because its not how we would expect events to unfold naturally.

People have natural cognitive biases (read: biases in how they think, not biases towards specific people or groups). I guess it's easy to conflate the two biases with something like this, but they aren't the same thing.

[steviewevie]

42 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Whats your point? That the remainder should just move to a friendly country.

Maybe you’re right. But then surely they should be compensated. The Israeli settlers were compensated $200k each with the disengagement from gaza. Whats a fair sum for giving up your property and leaving your country permenently? Shall we say $200k each for 5 odd mil palestinians?

Would probably do it right? But would cost over a trillion dollars. Much cheaper to just make life as uncomfortable as possible for them until they cant bare it anymore.

No point, just that they are there and not causing problems for Jordan as far as I know.

Edited October 19, 2023 by steviewevie

[cellar]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

We were always taught as historians we have to question and think. What was the motive for Israel to blow up a hospital. I mean I wouldn’t rule it out, but I think we take a step back. Social media dictates we need answers now, but sometimes waiting is ok.

But also I do agree with this. Sadly the world doesn't like waiting.

[steviewevie]

This is what I was talking about with BBC...this was how was reported on TV...

 

[steviewevie]

It is probably difficult for journalists to be impartial when they see the horror being suffered by whatever side.

[Skip997]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/18/israel-gaza-hamas-palestinians

This article is written by Jews

 

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza
 

Just read about it. Fascinating. Sharon did it because otherwise it would mean eventually absorbing the gazans into the israeli state- which would make it impossible for it to continue as both a ’democratic’ and jewish state.

The thing now though is that if the palestinians leave gaza, with as is the case, no right of return, then its problem solved. You get the land without the people. Its sick.

 

The second half of the comments are qualified by the first half. "In the absence of a negotiated settlement... we need to..." 

So the arguement is because he doesn't believe the Palestinians want a 2 state solution. He is saying what needs to be done to secure Isreal if there is no agreement on 2 states

So to avoid ethnic cleansing and occupation the 2 state solution is a better option. 

[squirrelarmy]

2 minutes ago, lazyred said:

So to avoid ethnic cleansing and occupation the 2 state solution is a better option. 

The two state solution is the better solution. Problem there though is the Palestinian charter where they want the total destruction of the state of Israel.

How can peace be negotiated when one side will not compromise at all?

 

Asking Palestine to broker peace with Israel is like asking Americans to give up their guns. 

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

The two state solution is the better solution. Problem there though is the Palestinian charter where they want the total destruction of the state of Israel.

How can peace be negotiated when one side will not compromise at all?

 

Asking Palestine to broker peace with Israel is like asking Americans to give up their guns. 

it's going to take a lot of compromises and sacrifices from both sides. Needs proper negotiations, US will have to be involved, and Egypt, Jordan and other Gulf states, and ideally you'd have Iran there too, but that is highly unlikely. Infact any two state solution is looking very unlikely at moment. 

[steviewevie]

Ideally you'd go back to this. Won't happen of course. At the time even this was seen as unfair to Palestinians...the smaller Jewish population having a larger percentage of land.

[lazyred]

6 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

The two state solution is the better solution. Problem there though is the Palestinian charter where they want the total destruction of the state of Israel.

How can peace be negotiated when one side will not compromise at all?

 

Asking Palestine to broker peace with Israel is like asking Americans to give up their guns. 

They have been close in the past so there's always hope. The PA might be willing but not Hamas at the moment. Each time they have gone to war with Isreal the Palestinians have ended up in a worse position. I can't see that changing so they need to compromise to get peace. 

[steviewevie]

you can understand why they might feel a bit hard done by...