Israel - A Rant

[Jack the Sipper]

4 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

without being a cultist

 

what did he say that was so objectionable? 

 

I've already said, I disagree with him that the only path to a just peace is for a rollback of the occupations going back 55 years, to 67. I would rather there was no occupation in the first place, but we are where we are, and a complete withdrawal is not going to happen. It just isn't and anyone who really believes that Israel would do that is deluded. Does Corbyn believe that? I doubt it, so what to read from his comments about it being the only way? What about an agreed settlement that gives neither all of what they want but gives both  of them a far better situation than what they have now, something that might actually be achievable, once rationale trumps ideology?

[Arniepie]

1 minute ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

I've already said, I disagree with him that the only path to a just peace is for a rollback of the occupations going back 55 years, to 67. I would rather there was no occupation in the first place, but we are where we are, and a complete withdrawal is not going to happen. It just isn't and anyone who really believes that Israel would do that is deluded. Does Corbyn believe that? I doubt it, so what to read from his comments about it being the only way? What about an agreed settlement that gives neither all of what they want but gives both  of them a far better situation than what they have now, something that might actually be achievable, once rationale trumps ideology?

but isnt the occupation at the core of the entire issue?

and isnt he primarily calling for a ceasefire?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

The Liverpool Way echoing real life. Someone totally loses the argument about Corbyn, so implies that those who back him are antisemitic. 
 

Yawn…..

[Mudface]

26 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

 

Phew. 

 

Hang on, why the fuck have you got TK's number?! 

 

Bowling tips and the latest QAnon news.

[Jack the Sipper]

20 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

but isnt the occupation at the core of the entire issue?

and isnt he primarily calling for a ceasefire?

 

Of course it is, but to say that the only solution is for complete withdrawal, as Corbyn does, is not realistic. Don't you agree? Or do you think that there's a chance that Israel agrees to go back to 1967 borders? 

 

Occupation was also the cause of the Troubles in NI. But Sinn Fein and the IRA accepted a peace that wasn't conditional on a complete withdrawal of the UK from NI. Who in NI, or even in Ireland wants to go back to what went before because the British are still there? Why would Corbyn even think that this has to be the case in Palestine.? Why would he argue that there can't be peace unless this happens? It doesn't sound like the argument of a pacifist to me. 

[Jairzinho]

26 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

I've already said, I disagree with him that the only path to a just peace is for a rollback of the occupations going back 55 years, to 67. I would rather there was no occupation in the first place, ", and a complete withdrawal is not going to happen. It just isn't and anyone who really believes that Israel would do that is deluded. Does Corbyn believe that? I doubt it, so what to read from his comments about it being the only way? What about an agreed settlement that gives neither all of what they want but gives both  of them a far better situation than what they have now, something that might actually be achievable, once rationale trumps ideology?

 

You seem to have extrapolated quite a lot of details from a tweet which didn't have any. Did Corbyn mention 1967 lines? Are the only two options 1967 or your view of "but we are where we are". A view which, rightly, would be seen as incredibly insulting to Palestinians. 

 

What does an agreed settlement look like to you, and what is it you think Palestinians were doing pre Hamas?

[Jack the Sipper]

44 minutes ago, Anubis said:

 

Given the number of times you post about him, you appear to have difficulty doing so yourself.

 

I rarely post about him, and when I do it's in response to what someone else has posted about him. he's really not in my thoughts much these days. Try it.

[Anubis]

4 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Try it.

 

Why would I? I like him and his ideals. I’m happy to read what he has to say.

[TD_LFC]

Tzipi is a lot less self-righteous and far more unsure than her last round of interviews.

 

 

[Jairzinho]

WE ARE THE GOODIES, DAMMIT

[TheHowieLama]

Get off the fence you waffle cone.

 

 

[Arniepie]

5 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Of course it is, but to say that the only solution is for complete withdrawal, as Corbyn does, is not realistic. Don't you agree? Or do you think that there's a chance that Israel agrees to go back to 1967 borders? 

 

Occupation was also the cause of the Troubles in NI. But Sinn Fein and the IRA accepted a peace that wasn't conditional on a complete withdrawal of the UK from NI. Who in NI, or even in Ireland wants to go back to what went before because the British are still there? Why would Corbyn even think that this has to be the case in Palestine.? Why would he argue that there can't be peace unless this happens? It doesn't sound like the argument of a pacifist 

 

This is what he said.

I doubt very few people can disagree with the 1st chunk and it's a direct opposite of what sunak is saying.

He has also been calling for a ceasefire which more and more politicians are now calling for.

He.is also spot on about international law.

So the contentious part is the occupation part,which you yourself say is wrong?

I thought the good Friday agreement was dependent on the British leaving Northern Ireland at some point?

[Jack the Sipper]

34 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

 

You seem to have extrapolated quite a lot of details from a tweet which didn't have any. Did Corbyn mention 1967 lines? Are the only two options 1967 or your view of "but we are where we are". A view which, rightly, would be seen as incredibly insulting to Palestinians. 

 

What does an agreed settlement look like to you, and what is it you think Palestinians were doing pre Hamas?

 

From yesterday's tweet:

 

"For the only path to a just & lasting peace: an end to the occupation of Palestine."

 

From his frst tweet since the current events started:

 

 "ending the occupation is the only means of achieving a just and lasting peace."

 

Granted, he doesn't state back to 1967, but he also doesn't qualify his remarks with anything else, just a repeated reference to 'an end to occupation'. I think I'm entitled to assume he's talking about an end to the Israeli occupation full stop, not some occupation in certain areas, or even a settlement, neither of which he refers to. 

 

What makes you think he's not talking about a total withdrawal, given what he's said? At the very least, he needs to be more explicit if he's not talking abut that. And, as I asked Arniepie, do you think a total withdrawal by the Israelis (if that's what Corbyn or anyone else is demanding for peace) is at all likely?

 

An agreed settlement could be a million different things in practice, but in essence it will mean compromise on both sides, and something that both sides can live with, with peace and some or, ideally for me, total Palestinian independence at its core. It's really not for me to say what the Palestinians should be accepting, just as it shouldn't be for Corbyn either.

 

[Gnasher]

Boy gives cat bread.

 

 

 

 

[TD_LFC]

Hamas behaviour that...

[Jack the Sipper]

4 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

 

This is what he said.

I doubt very few people can disagree with the 1st chunk and it's a direct opposite of what sunak is saying.

He has also been calling for a ceasefire which more and more politicians are now calling for.

He.is also spot on about international law.

So the contentious part is the occupation part,which you yourself say is wrong?

I thought the good Friday agreement was dependent on the British leaving Northern Ireland at some point?

 

No. Where  did you hear that, and what time frame did you hear?

 

 

[Arniepie]

2 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

No. Where  did you hear that, and what time frame did you hear?

 

 

In the Good Friday Agreement, the British government committed to reduce the number and role of the armed forces deployed in Northern Ireland, as well as to the removal of security installations and emergency powers in Northern Ireland. At the time of signing the peace agreement in April, an estimated 17,200 British troops were deployed, which increased by 800 during Northern Ireland’s marching season in July.¹ The size of the troops, however, was reduced to 15,000 by the end of the year.² Demobilization of more British troops from Northern Ireland, however, was contingent on the improvement of the security situation in Northern Ireland. It was reported that routine military patrolling decreased substantially and many security and observation posts were vacated since the signing of the accord.³“The Good Friday Agreement — Security,” BBC News, May 2006, accessed January 31, 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/policing/security…

[Bjornebye]

It's the same shit over and over. "Define woke" silence, blocked. 

 

Imagine having a go at someone like Corbyn. Fucking hell if that's not the reason the worlds a cunt hole what is? 

 

 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Arniepie said:

In the Good Friday Agreement, the British government committed to reduce the number and role of the armed forces deployed in Northern Ireland, as well as to the removal of security installations and emergency powers in Northern Ireland. At the time of signing the peace agreement in April, an estimated 17,200 British troops were deployed, which increased by 800 during Northern Ireland’s marching season in July.¹ The size of the troops, however, was reduced to 15,000 by the end of the year.² Demobilization of more British troops from Northern Ireland, however, was contingent on the improvement of the security situation in Northern Ireland. It was reported that routine military patrolling decreased substantially and many security and observation posts were vacated since the signing of the accord.³“The Good Friday Agreement — Security,” BBC News, May 2006, accessed January 31, 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/policing/security…

 

He'll block you now. 

[Gnasher]

16 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Baby raping supporting cunt.  On two continents now too.  
 

The very definition of a useful idiot.  
 

Anubis - fuck me, a public servant.  The others were always stupid.  
 

 

 

16 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Horrific.  Not one mention of the press conference where Israel showed the atrocities filmed and broadcast by these cunts. Children dismembered, a pregnant women cut open.  The Filipino bloke having his head hacked off. Stronts fault all of it.  You fucking hypocritical bastards.
 

Calling him out, demanding he respond.  Cunts.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Jack the Sipper]

12 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

In the Good Friday Agreement, the British government committed to reduce the number and role of the armed forces deployed in Northern Ireland, as well as to the removal of security installations and emergency powers in Northern Ireland. At the time of signing the peace agreement in April, an estimated 17,200 British troops were deployed, which increased by 800 during Northern Ireland’s marching season in July.¹ The size of the troops, however, was reduced to 15,000 by the end of the year.² Demobilization of more British troops from Northern Ireland, however, was contingent on the improvement of the security situation in Northern Ireland. It was reported that routine military patrolling decreased substantially and many security and observation posts were vacated since the signing of the accord.³“The Good Friday Agreement — Security,” BBC News, May 2006, accessed January 31, 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/policing/security…

 

Sorry Arnie, but where in that text, or any other text on the subject, does it talk about the British leaving NI as part of the GFA? They've reduced their influence and numbers, for sure, that was part of the agreement, but they're still there, they still have a secretary of state for NI, there are still NI politicians sitting at Westminster, they can still exercise power from Westminster if Stormont is suspended (as often happens, and I think is the case right now). From my understanding, there is no timetable for the UK to withdraw completely. It's completely dependent on separate votes for direct Irish rule in both NI and Ireland, which may or may not ever happen.

[Arniepie]

1 minute ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Sorry Arnie, but where in that text, or any other text on the subject, does it talk about the British leaving NI as part of the GFA? They've reduced their influence and numbers, for sure, that was part of the agreement, but they're still there, they still have a secretary of state for NI, they can still exercise power from Westminster NI if Stormont is suspended (as often happens, and I tin kis the case right now). From my understanding, there is no timetable for the UK to withdraw completely. It's completely dependent on separate votes for direct Irish rule in both NI and Ireland, which may or may not ever happen.

I thought you meant the military occupation?

I thought they were governed from Stormont now?

I’ll be honest, im no expert on how much power we still have over them, but I thought they were fairly much self-governing now?

if they want reunification, surely that would be down to the people of northern Ireland? 

 

anyway, going off topic a bit now. I’m fairly sure he is saying there shouldnt be a negotiated settlement (after all that’s what happened in northern Ireland)but the thorny issue of the occupation has to be addressed not ignored?

 

 

[Bjornebye]

Sounds like someone is justifying the occupation to me. Which is the reason we are here in the first place but yeah. fuck Corbyn! 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

58 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

From yesterday's tweet:

 

"For the only path to a just & lasting peace: an end to the occupation of Palestine."

 

From his frst tweet since the current events started:

 

 "ending the occupation is the only means of achieving a just and lasting peace."

 

Granted, he doesn't state back to 1967, but he also doesn't qualify his remarks with anything else, just a repeated reference to 'an end to occupation'. I think I'm entitled to assume he's talking about an end to the Israeli occupation full stop, not some occupation in certain areas, or even a settlement, neither of which he refers to. 

 

What makes you think he's not talking about a total withdrawal, given what he's said? At the very least, he needs to be more explicit if he's not talking abut that. And, as I asked Arniepie, do you think a total withdrawal by the Israelis (if that's what Corbyn or anyone else is demanding for peace) is at all likely?

 

An agreed settlement could be a million different things in practice, but in essence it will mean compromise on both sides, and something that both sides can live with, with peace and some or, ideally for me, total Palestinian independence at its core. It's really not for me to say what the Palestinians should be accepting, just as it shouldn't be for Corbyn either.

 

I’ve got that cream you wanted. 

[Jack the Sipper]

5 minutes ago, Nelly-Matip said:

I’ve got that cream you wanted. 

 

I'll say what I want on here, not that it's nearly as offensive as the bollocks you regularly post, and no shitty fucking clique is going to bully me into silence.