Anti-semitic loser Roger Waters (previously of Pink Floyd) makes fool of himself

[Aristotle]

2 hours ago, RIchard Britten said:

That's a nice (fake history) map. How about this (real history) one. You can't even see the land you label as "Israel" or "Palestine" as it's so small.

 

[woolley]

@ Richard: But it's realpolitik as I said. As ever, you view the world as you would have it rather than as it is = liberal.

[RIchard Britten]

4 minutes ago, woolley said:

@ Richard: But it's realpolitik as I said. As ever, you view the world as you would have it rather than as it is = liberal.

You mean how you see it = doom and gloom.

 

Also I noticed your response to the well thought out and nuanced post that I found to "nuhuh totally wrong".

[woolley]

13 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

You mean how you see it = doom and gloom.

 

Also I noticed your response to the well thought out and nuanced post that I found to "nuhuh totally wrong".

Well thought out by someone else, you mean? No I didn't say it was wrong at all but I had already summarised it in my earlier post. I do that to save time while you plod along behind. Oh well, so long as the employer pays you to do it why worry eh?

Look. If it's doom and gloom then there's no point in putting lipstick on it is there? That is the situation between Israel and the Arabs. We have had 70 years of education on the subject. How much more do you need?

 

[pongo]

On 30/08/2017 at 1:38 PM, RIchard Britten said:

It was the Arab League and not Israel which rejected the UN settlement. They opposed the very existence of Israel and invaded in 1948.  Which ultimately resulted in huge numbers of people being displaced. Up through the 60s and 70s the Arab countries remained hostile to the existence of Israel. That, and the terrorism of the 70s and 80s is why much of Israeli politics is so defensively hawkish today.

It's no surprise that Israel now also effectively occupies so much disputed territory. Today the Arab governments are typically more pragmatic and less hostile. But how can Israel begin to make peace with Hamas which disputes the right of Israel to even exist? There cannot be peace, except through strength, until the Arab people as a whole reject extremism.

[quilp]

On the nail there pongo. 

[woolley]

Is Richard off work today?

[Chinahand]

18 hours ago, pongo said:

 

23 hours ago, RIchard Britten said:

It was the Arab League and not Israel which rejected the UN settlement. They opposed the very existence of Israel and invaded in 1948.  Which ultimately resulted in huge numbers of people being displaced. Up through the 60s and 70s the Arab countries remained hostile to the existence of Israel. That, and the terrorism of the 70s and 80s is why much of Israeli politics is so defensively hawkish today.

It's no surprise that Israeli now also effectively occupies so much disputed territory. Today the Arab governments are typically more pragmatic and less hostile. But how can Israel begin to make peace with Hamas which disputes the right of Israel to even exist? There cannot be peace, except through strength, until the Arab people as a whole reject extremism.

 

Excellent post, Pongo.

The maps are also disengenuous - the 1946 map is a delightful fiction which mixes up land ownership with territorial claims with geopolitical lines drawn over maps of unowned and uninhabited deserts by distant colonialists - the whole area was under the British Mandate at the time.

The only map worth the candle is the UN 1947 one, with the 1967 and 2010 ones again being fictions which mix up sovereignty with occupation and local administration.  The 2010 map is doubly inaccurate as it ignores Israel's withdraw from Gaza in 2005 - a unilateral act to try to move the peace process forward which was met with rejection and terrorism via Hamas.

The 2010 map is really an approximation of the Oslo Accords from 1995.  The Oslo accords allowed for Palestinian governance of parts of the Occupied Territories with a confidence building and negotiation process to expand that if the security buffers remaining under Israel military control were shown not to be needed.  The PLO totally failed in building on that momentum to peace being corrupt and incompetent in their administration to such an exent that Hamas could replace them as the driving force in Palestinian politics.

The result has been a loss of faith in the Israeli public that it has a partner for peace and a strengthening of the settler movement.  Personally I totally reject the settler movement and see a huge contrast in the Israeli state's treatment of illegal expansions of settlements compared to illegal construction by Palestinians - the former are protected and encouraged by the Israeli army while the latter are demolished and bulldozed.

Israel cannot be Jewish, democratic and a single state - it can only pick two of those options and to keep the occupied territories under undemocratic apartheid-like security measures is a path to a corruption of its own very admirable democratic and legal traditions.

[the stinking enigma]

What does the 1945 map look like?

[Chinahand]

 

[Chinahand]

There are a far more nuanced set of maps on the FOUNDATION FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE website showing various maps offered by Israel to try to bring the peace process forward.

This is a good example from 2008 - most settlements were to be abandoned, while those that remained would result in expanding Palestinian soverignty to an equal area of Israeli land.  A classic example of Land-for-Peace.  It was rejected by the Palestinian side.

[P.K.]

Of course it was rejected.

Hamas only exists to condemn and confront Israel. Without that tenet Hamas would cease to exist and they don't want that.

So until Hamas accepts that the regional superpower has a right to exist, which will never happen, there will always be conflict.