Questiontime

[Gnasher]

Yes, I know it's occupied, it's been consistently occupied for centuries by the Turks, British, Jordanians and latterly Israel.

 

I wish I knew what your point was.

What a load of nonsense, we used to occupy half the world, does that make it right? Does that make isreal occupying the West Bank right? It appears according to your twisted logic it does.

 

Do yourself a favour, put what "scientific evidence" you have, or require, in your own mind and open your curtains, its a big world out there.

[Strontium]

What a load of nonsense, we used to occupy half the world, does that make it right? Does that make isreal occupying the West Bank right? It appears according to your twisted logic it does.

 

Do yourself a favour, put what "scientific evidence" you have, or require, in your own mind and open your curtains, its a big world out there.

 

I don't believe anyone said that it was right of Israel to occupy the West Bank. If they did, I missed it.

[Gnasher]

I don't believe anyone said that it was right of Israel to occupy the West Bank. If they did, I missed it.

Well what's your point? What's your point in saying the West Bank has been occupied throughout the years? Many countries have faced occupation, so what? Means little. Why bring that up into the debate?

 

I think the point you were trying to make was as Palestine has been occupied before what's the deal? I can't see no other reason why you would bring it up.

[Strontium]

You brought Palestine into it, and I still don't know what point you were trying to make.

 

Occupation is the natural order of things for the West Bank, and has been for at least 500 years, but that doesn't mean it isn't a big deal, just unexceptional.

 

But as I say, until I know what your initial point was, there will just be a lot of this beating around the bush.

[RedRazor]

Well what's your point? What's your point in saying the West Bank has been occupied throughout the years? Many countries have faced occupation, so what? Means little. Why bring that up into the debate?

 

I think the point you were trying to make was as Palestine has been occupied before what's the deal? I can't see no other reason why you would bring it up.

Has there ever been an independent state of Palestine? I don't think there has.

[Gnasher]

You brought Palestine into it, and I still don't know what point you were trying to make.

 

Occupation is the natural order of things for the West Bank, and has been for at least 500 years, but that doesn't mean it isn't a big deal, just unexceptional.

 

But as I say, until I know what your initial point was, there will just be a lot of this beating around the bush.

As with the food bank thread, I'll try to take it slowly with you again,

 

You said " you should see what they do in isreali neighbour states"

 

I replied " like the West Bank"

 

You replied " the West Banks been consistently occupied by people before"

 

Now i took that statement as some off the cuff justification of Israel occupying another countries territory. If you can explain your comment differently be my guest.

 

I explained this to you and your reply was " well you brought Palestine into it". Which is complexing as the person who brought up Israels neighbours is you.

[Gnasher]

You brought Palestine into it, and I still don't know what point you were trying to make.

 

Occupation is the natural order of things for the West Bank, and has been for at least 500 years, but that doesn't mean it isn't a big deal, just unexceptional.

 

But as I say, until I know what your initial point was, there will just be a lot of this beating around the bush.

My opinion is, you are full of shit.

[Stu Monty]

Either that, or academia in this country is a left-wing echo chamber.

 

They should see what happens to female academics in Israel's neighbour states.

 

Straw man.

 

Again.

 

Unable to defend Israel, and its actions, on their own merit. As ever.

[Section_31]

There really does need to be an alternative to question time, with educated analysis. Not instead of question time but another alternative. It would be nice to see actually informed people give an opinion on the how's and whys of today's society. Every week I see politicians talk on important subjects like they have read a headline and formed an opinion based on just that and how its fits their party line. I'm also tired of the blame game between the three parties when all three have been complicit in failure or the ignoring of major issues. Pandering to profit ahead of well being.

Have you seen the Tom Bradbury one on ITV? It's excruciating.

[Bobby Hundreds]

I honestly don't think I've watched itv in about a decade.

[Strontium]

Straw man.

 

Again.

 

Unable to defend Israel, and its actions, on their own merit. As ever.

I''m not trying to defend Israel or its actions, which are frequently indefensible.

 

What I object to is the singling out of Israel when its neighbours, like Iran, Syria, Saudi etc are as bad or worse.

 

This has been explained a dozen times and no doubt will need to be explained a dozen more.

[RedRazor]

I''m not trying to defend Israel or its actions, which are frequently indefensible.

 

What I object to is the singling out of Israel when its neighbours, like Iran, Syria, Saudi etc are as bad or worse.

 

This has been explained a dozen times and no doubt will need to be explained a dozen more.

I don't disagree with the fundamental point you make but Iran and Saudi are not really neighbours. Indeed Iran is the only country in the Middle East outside Israel that still has a significant Jewish population.

 

However, when the stated aim of the peoples around you is your total extermination it is not hard to see why Israel behave as they do. But their behaviour is no more defensible than the behaviour of others involved.

 

As for a solution to the problem no-one seems willing to put one forward that has any mileage. The international community keep throwing in resolutions that are ignored by either one or both parties. The creation of an artifical political construct such as a "state of Palestine" has not achieved anything other than to exacerbate the situation. They are just compounding the problems that they created throughout the last century.   

 

The behaviour of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt towards the refugees does not reflect well on them either. They all seem more than happy to use these poor people as political pawns. Indeed the Jordanians and Egyptians were more than happy to invade the West Bank and the Gaza Strip respectively at the first opportunity.

 

If I was an Israeli and the choices were either 7m dead Israelis or 4m Palestinian refugees I know which I would pick. I don't know what the solution is and if I'm truthful I don't have too much sympathy for either side. Neither seem willing to take the first steps towards a peaceful solution. It will take a Mandela-esque figure to sort this out and there isn't one on the horizon as far as I can see. 

[Stu Monty]

I''m not trying to defend Israel or its actions, which are frequently indefensible.

 

What I object to is the singling out of Israel when its neighbours, like Iran, Syria, Saudi etc are as bad or worse.

 

This has been explained a dozen times and no doubt will need to be explained a dozen more.

 

Yes, it's almost as if people feel that there is some sort of difference in the way all those nations are portrayed in the mass media that need rebalancing isn't it?

 

I know I'm sick of hearing about what top lads the Iranians and Saudis are whilst Isreal keeps getting rubbished.

 

Israel does get very specifically singled out in pretty much blanket coverage, just not in the way you seem to be trying to say.

[Strontium]

So your intent is not to provide an objective view of the situation, but to put forth a biased one, in order to "balance out" what you perceive to be pro-Israeli bias in the media?

 

If so, it's no wonder you find yourself at odds with someone objective like me.

 

Just a guess, but if the media does view Israel more kindly than the likes of Saudi or Iran (and thus far, that has to go down as an unsupported assertion), that's probably because the media is much freer in Israel than it is in Saudi or Iran.

 

Try flogging back issues of The Liverpool Way in Tel Aviv, Tehran and Riyadh, and see what happens.

[Stu Monty]

So your intent is not to provide an objective view of the situation, but to put forth a biased one, in order to "balance out" what you perceive to be pro-Israeli bias in the media?

 

If so, it's no wonder you find yourself at odds with someone objective like me.

 

Just a guess, but if the media does view Israel more kindly than the likes of Saudi or Iran (and thus far, that has to go down as an unsupported assertion), that's probably because the media is much freer in Israel than it is in Saudi or Iran.

 

Try flogging back issues of The Liverpool Way in Tel Aviv, Tehran and Riyadh, and see what happens.

 

No Dog, my comments are usually prompted by someone painting Israel as the super-duper good guys. I'm not putting forward a "biased" account I'm putting forward the view that they are indefensible because they are. I'm just putting forward an often ignored truth. Why can't you get the fact that the reason someone might need to keep pointing out that a government is a deeply immoral one is because very few people are of that opinion. if it was taken as a given that they are cunts, as it is with the other nations you mention (regardless of their actions), then there'd be less need to point it out so regularly.

 

As I keep saying to you, you can't compare yourself against the worst possible examples on the planet and then point to reasons why you are slightly less terrible than them. Not as a military superpower than claims to be civilised.

 

The Isreali goverment is an abominable administration. Comparing it to a few other complete cunts that you may try and argue are more cunty will not change that fact.

 

That comment about the media treating Israel more kindly than Iran being unsupported is pretty much what's wrong with your posting in a nutshell too. It's ridiculous.

[Strontium]

Has anyone ever painted Israel as super-duper good guys? I'd sure love to see an example of that.

 

I think your perception is wrong. Israel cops as much flak as anyone, both from within the media and without.

 

I'm not closed to the idea that the media treats Israel more kindly than Iran, I just haven't been paying close attention. It sure wouldn't surprise me because, as I said, the media tends to look more kindly on places where it's actually free to operate.

 

Ditto for our governments; democracies tend to look more kindly on fellow democracies than dictatorships.

[Stu Monty]

Has anyone ever painted Israel as super-duper good guys? I'd sure love to see an example of that.

 

I think your perception is wrong. Israel cops as much flak as anyone, both from within the media and without.

 

I'm not closed to the idea that the media treats Israel more kindly than Iran, I just haven't been paying close attention. It sure wouldn't surprise me because, as I said, the media tends to look more kindly on places where it's actually free to operate.

 

Ditto for our governments; democracies tend to look more kindly on fellow democracies than dictatorships.

 

It's seriously like talking to someone who lives in a disney film. Such a child-like view of the world.

 

We like dictators, they just have to be OUR dictators. Governments favour other leaders that further our self-interest, it's a simple as that. Any strangely enough, freindly, controllable dictators tend to be more stable than pesky democracies. Did you miss how desperately and embarrassingly we tried to cling to Mubarak as he drowned in calls for democracy?

 

I can't be arsed having conversations not grounded in any sort of reality. It's painfully annoying.

[Strontium]

You do understand the phrase tend to, right?

 

Look at the top 20 countries that the UK or the US trade with, and tell me how many of them are "friendly, controllable dictatorships".

[Stu Monty]

Laughable, naive and childish understanding of the world.

 

Most of the big nations being democracies does not mean they look more kindly on democracies.

 

Does Russia being a trade partner mean we look more favourably on them than Belgium?

 

Grow up.

[Strontium]

If you can't acknowledge that having major dealings with people and going into fucking political unions with them constitutes favourable treatment, then there's probably nothing that will change your mind.

[Stu Monty]

I noticed you slipped "Political unions" in there and tried to make it look like you were emphasising a previous point, where previously you just said trade. Not very subtle.

 

Have you considered that it might be power and economic benefit that nations give favourable treatment to, and that it's just that a fair few of the top 20 are democracies? No? You not thought that if they are happy to try and keep dictators in power because it serves their ends that maybe...just maybe, democracy comes pretty fucking low on the list of reasons to look favourably on nations.

 

I'll ask again: Does Russia being a big trade partner mean we look on them more favourably than Belgium?

[Strontium]

I noticed you slipped "Political unions" in there and tried to make it look like you were emphasising a previous point, where previously you just said trade. Not very subtle.

 

I'm pointing out that we've actually entered political union with many of our trading partners. Their citizens are free to live and work here just as freely as you or I. I would hope you'd acknowledge this is evidence that we look upon them more favourably than we do Saudi or Iran or Israel.

 

Have you considered that it might be power and economic benefit that nations give favourable treatment to, and that it's just that a fair few of the top 20 are democracies? No? You not thought that if they are happy to try and keep dictators in power because it serves their ends that maybe...just maybe, democracy comes pretty fucking low on the list of reasons to look favourably on nations.

No, I haven't considered that, because the empirical data doesn't bear that out. For instance, the conditions for entering the EU (the nations of the EU, of course, being the countries with the most favourable relationship with this country) are that a country adopts social and democratic reforms if need be. If democracy was immaterial, then the likes of Turkey would already be in the EU.

 

I'll ask again: Does Russia being a big trade partner mean we look on them more favourably than Belgium?

Belgium is a bigger trading partner than Russia is.

[Stu Monty]

*sigh*

 

Stop equating the operation of the EU to the operations of single states that can persue their own self-interest. You are putting forward the view that nations that are locked together for joint benefits (such as economic and the rather major benefit of nor going to war with each other) look upon each other more favourably. Yes. Yes they do. That isn't rocket science. The idea that the EU (probably the most complex and nuanced meeting of self-interest and co-operation in the world) can be used as the rule here just isn't solid.

 

Neither is your empitical data or Turkey example. I don't see how you can, without almost forcing yourself to, ignore the history of democracies propping up their own puppet dictators. It amazes me you could be a grown man and still think that the US would look upon Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi, Chile, Egypt, Somalia etc and not see that it is self-interest that powers relations, and that democracy is very, very optional.

 

I want to give you a slow hand clap for the Belgium retort. Do I need to give you another nation or do you want to speak to the actual point. Do we look more favourably on the UAE than the EU minnows? Do the US look more favourably on China than the UK? 

 

As a connecting aside. Which summit was it where Obama snubbed EU nations to spend time cultivating China, India, Turkey and Brazil? 

 

It's about power and self-interest. The US did not want a democracy in Egypt, they wanted a dictator. That's why they propped him up and desperately clung to him. Nations look favourably on other nations with shared interests. Democracy or none.

 

If the US had to sever its relationship with Iceland or Bahrain I know which one I'd bet on.

[Jairzinho]

I'd love to see Putin personally beat the fucking shit out of David Aaronovitch.

[Jairzinho]

Getting his fucking arse handed to him by someone speaking in their third language, and a 112 year old Michael Heseltine.