Israel v Hamas

I think it is difficult for anyone rational to see a way to lasting peace without a two-state solution, which necessarily means recognising Palestine as a nation in its own right. But there are two main problems with Starmer's statement. Firstly he appears to make the recognition of Palestine conditional on Israel failing to engage in a peace process - how is that logical (ie if Israel's government behaves better then there is no Palestine) ? On the other hand he makes no reference to the point that Palestine could never become a state if its leadership is dedicated to the eradication of Israel, as Hamas is. Surely the sensible position is that a two-state solution is the right one, but is only achievable in the absence of Hamas and with the return of common decency in the behaviour of the Israeli government and its military forces.
 
Living In Hope said:
I think it is difficult for anyone rational to see a way to lasting peace without a two-state solution, which necessarily means recognising Palestine as a nation in its own right. But there are two main problems with Starmer's statement. Firstly he appears to make the recognition of Palestine conditional on Israel failing to engage in a peace process - how is that logical (ie if Israel's government behaves better then there is no Palestine) ? On the other hand he makes no reference to the point that Palestine could never become a state if its leadership is dedicated to the eradication of Israel, as Hamas is. Surely the sensible position is that a two-state solution is the right one, but is only achievable in the absence of Hamas and with the return of common decency in the behaviour of the Israeli government and its military forces.
Click to expand...
IMO this announcement was only a deluded attempt to placate the anti semitic / jew hating elements in the PLP. Whilst that is risible it is interesting he thinks that cohort are so dim that a few platitudes will placate them. It is well documented there are many Labour MP's in seats where losing the muslim vote will oust them, let's see if for example Rayner seeks to change seat before the next election

Pledges | The Muslim Vote

themuslimvote.co.uk themuslimvote.co.uk

The legal right to have sex with your cousin will be in next manifesto I expect
 
Spindle said:
You aren't a moron but you are incredibly disingenuous, even devious.

The vast majority want a state, but they don't want it now, today, as a threat to Israel, because it rewards Hamas. Not that Hamas want that, they don't care about a state, they want the Jews dead whether "Palestine" exists on a map or not.
Click to expand...
Hamas must be totally eradicated before Gaza can be part of a two state solution.

I would support a two state solution if it gives both sides security.

Not interested in a penny of UK tax money going to either Israel or Palestine, of course the latter more likely, I expect if " Palestine " is recognised as a state by the the UK it opens up more avenues ofr UK govt aid to pour into the corrupt controllers of the West Bank.

I don't care what happened decades ago when the British had some control in Palestine and it should not influence policy today
 
HKOwen said:
Hamas must be totally eradicated before Gaza can be part of a two state solution.

I would support a two state solution if it gives both sides security.

Not interested in a penny of UK tax money going to either Israel or Palestine, of course the latter more likely, I expect if " Palestine " is recognised as a state by the the UK it opens up more avenues ofr UK govt aid to pour into the corrupt controllers of the West Bank.

I don't care what happened decades ago when the British had some control in Palestine and it should not influence policy today
Click to expand...
We could pull down some statues and rename a few streets for what happened 250 years ago, so I won’t hold your breath on your last point !
 
HKOwen said:
IMO this announcement was only a deluded attempt to placate the anti semitic / jew hating elements in the PLP. Whilst that is risible it is interesting he thinks that cohort are so dim that a few platitudes will placate them. It is well documented there are many Labour MP's in seats where losing the muslim vote will oust them, let's see if for example Rayner seeks to change seat before the next election

Pledges | The Muslim Vote

themuslimvote.co.uk themuslimvote.co.uk

The legal right to have sex with your cousin will be in next manifesto I expect
Click to expand...
Wow that site. So "ordinary Brits" yet their #1 priority is a bit of sectarian foreign policy, then after that they talk about equality.

Also, it's never been illegal to shag your first cousin. Pretty common amongst the wealthiest 150 years ago. Charles Darwin married his, and subsequently issues with some children reinforced his evolution theory.
 
What the media doesn't ever say is that Israel has supported or proposed a two-state solution at least 6 to 8 times throughout history, often with significant territorial and political concessions. Each time, Palestinian leadership either rejected, walked away, or did not follow through. Yet Israel are supposed to be the unreasonable ones! Palestinians just want one state - with no Jews in it.
 
Spindle said:
Wow that site. So "ordinary Brits" yet their #1 priority is a bit of sectarian foreign policy, then after that they talk about equality.

Also, it's never been illegal to shag your first cousin. Pretty common amongst the wealthiest 150 years ago. Charles Darwin married his, and subsequently issues with some children reinforced his evolution theory.
Click to expand...
Yes, just seen, the Tories wanted to legislate to ban first cousin marriage

90% of French want first cousin sex to be classed as incest but politicians have backed off fearful of inflaming racial tension FFS
 
Penge Eagle said:
What the media doesn't ever say is that Israel has supported or proposed a two-state solution at least 6 to 8 times throughout history, often with significant territorial and political concessions. Each time, Palestinian leadership either rejected, walked away, or did not follow through. Yet Israel are supposed to be the unreasonable ones! Palestinians just want one state - with no Jews in it.
Click to expand...
It may land up as a polarised opposite.
 
Penge Eagle said:
What the media doesn't ever say is that Israel has supported or proposed a two-state solution at least 6 to 8 times throughout history, often with significant territorial and political concessions. Each time, Palestinian leadership either rejected, walked away, or did not follow through. Yet Israel are supposed to be the unreasonable ones! Palestinians just want one state - with no Jews in it.
Click to expand...
That there have been more reasonable Israeli governments in the past than this one is clearly true. As is that the Palestinian leadership has been both divided and unrealistic.

Those though are yesterday’s problems. Today’s are how to stop the killing and allow a period of peace to try to find a solution that avoids it starting again.

One of the biggest problems is that the Netanyahu government is controlled by people from the extremist settler movement. People who see all the West Bank and Gaza as theirs and are prepared to take it violently. And are doing so. There is no chance of compromise with them.

So countries recognising a Palestinian state is tokenism at best until Israel changes its government. I know there is opposition to Netanyahu in Israel but how strong it is now I don’t know. I don’t see a practical solution right now.
 
Penge Eagle said:
What the media doesn't ever say is that Israel has supported or proposed a two-state solution at least 6 to 8 times throughout history, often with significant territorial and political concessions. Each time, Palestinian leadership either rejected, walked away, or did not follow through. Yet Israel are supposed to be the unreasonable ones! Palestinians just want one state - with no Jews in it.
Click to expand...
As ever, a completely biased summary propped up by half-truths and selective presentation.

Israel has indeed supported or proposed a two-state solution numerous times, as have Palestinian leadership.

In all of these cases, there were conditions which were not acceptable (e.g. Israeli security control over parts of the West Bank, refusal of right of return, keeping settlement blocs).

Putting the failure of these proposals solely on Palestine is just lazy and inaccurate - Israel have regularly undermined talks by continuing settlement expansions during negotiations, for example.

The bold is yet another strawman, which seems to be becoming a bit of a habit - everyone is happy to agree Hamas are unreasonable, they've been condemned a million times over.

Again, to highlight the difference in the two positions; I accept both sides of this are unreasonable, untrustworthy and fuelled by hatred. You think it's only true of one side.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
As ever, a completely biased summary propped up by half-truths and selective presentation.

Israel has indeed supported or proposed a two-state solution numerous times, as have Palestinian leadership.

In all of these cases, there were conditions which were not acceptable (e.g. Israeli security control over parts of the West Bank, refusal of right of return, keeping settlement blocs).

Putting the failure of these proposals solely on Palestine is just lazy and inaccurate - Israel have regularly undermined talks by continuing settlement expansions during negotiations, for example.

The bold is yet another strawman, which seems to be becoming a bit of a habit - everyone is happy to agree Hamas are unreasonable, they've been condemned a million times over.

Again, to highlight the difference in the two positions; I accept both sides of this are unreasonable, untrustworthy and fuelled by hatred. You think it's only true of one side.
Click to expand...

"Hamas have been condemned a million times" Er... not by you!

Hamas has not ever supported two states.

Israel's demands were totally acceptable. Security control over parts of the West Bank is vital – recent history has shown us this! You know, the terrorist thing.

Refusal of 'Right of Return' is also a security risk and would alter the demographics of the only Jewish state.

Keeping settlement blocs? In the 2008 deal, Israel offered 94% of the West Bank to the Palestinians.

Mahmoud Abbas walked away from that deal and presented NO counter offer. He did not want two states. That was the missed opportunity for a Palestinian state.

Even in July 2000 Israeli PM Ehud Barak made an offer that included a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem.

A frustrated Bill Clinton said: "I’m not a territorial expert, but I know we’re talking about 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza... and the Palestinians turned it down."

Later, he said: "I’m very disappointed. Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything."

The Palestinian people would be far better off today if either of those deals been negotiated and accepted. Why weren't they? Their leaders never wanted the Jews to have their own homeland.
 
Penge Eagle said:
"Hamas have been condemned a million times" Er... not by you!

Hamas has not ever supported two states.

Israel's demands were totally acceptable. Security control over parts of the West Bank is vital – recent history has shown us this! You know, the terrorist thing.

Refusal of 'Right of Return' is also a security risk and would alter the demographics of the only Jewish state.

Keeping settlement blocs? In the 2008 deal, Israel offered 94% of the West Bank to the Palestinians.

Mahmoud Abbas walked away from that deal and presented NO counter offer. He did not want two states. That was the missed opportunity for a Palestinian state.

Even in July 2000 Israeli PM Ehud Barak made an offer that included a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem.

A frustrated Bill Clinton said: "I’m not a territorial expert, but I know we’re talking about 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza... and the Palestinians turned it down."

Later, he said: "I’m very disappointed. Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything."
Click to expand...
No one claimed they have - another strawman.

The acceptability of Israel's demands is obviously not a matter of fact, but of opinion - it's obviously not for you to decide they are 'totally acceptable'.

The Camp David offer is disputed - many credible sources, including then-U.S. negotiator Robert Malley, argue that Barak’s proposal fell short on key Palestinian demands: limited sovereignty, continued Israeli control of borders and airspace, no full control over East Jerusalem, and no meaningful resolution for refugees.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
No one claimed they have - another strawman.

The acceptability of Israel's demands is obviously not a matter of fact, but of opinion - it's obviously not for you to decide they are 'totally acceptable'.

The Camp David offer is disputed - many credible sources, including then-U.S. negotiator Robert Malley, argue that Barak’s proposal fell short on key Palestinian demands: limited sovereignty, continued Israeli control of borders and airspace, no full control over East Jerusalem, and no meaningful resolution for refugees.
Click to expand...

Er! it's not a strawman when you literally said in your post Palestinian leadership has supported two states.

The proposal may have fallen short but Abbas walked away from negotiating! That's what you do with deals. Any issues could have been resolved at a later date as what tends to happen between nations.

Put your Israel hatred to one side, you have to admit those deals should have been taken as the Palestinian people would be far better off today.
 
Meanwhile the IDF are actively preventing deaths by starvation.
By killing people at Aid distribution centres.

"31 July 2025, 06:20 BST
Updated 37 minutes ago
More than 50 Palestinians were killed and 400 others injured while waiting for food near a crossing in northern Gaza on Wednesday, a hospital says, as US special envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in Israel." (BBC website)
 
Penge Eagle said:
Er! it's not a strawman when you literally said in your post Palestinian leadership has supported two states.

The proposal may have fallen short but Abbas walked away from negotiating! That's what you do with deals. Any issues could have been resolved at a later date as what tends to happen between nations.

Put your Israel hatred to one side, you have to admit those deals should have been taken as the Palestinian people would be far better off today.
Click to expand...
As you well know, when we're talking over decades Palestinian leadership does not equal Hamas.

I think you can reasonably say that Palestinian leadership could have worked harder to make those deals agreeable, sure.

There are hundreds of things which could have played out differently historically which might have led to better outcomes now - speculating on them does nothing to change the reality today, nor does it make Israel's current campaign any more justifiable.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
As you well know, when we're talking over decades Palestinian leadership does not equal Hamas.

I think you can reasonably say that Palestinian leadership could have worked harder to make those deals agreeable, sure.

There are hundreds of things which could have played out differently historically which might have led to better outcomes now - speculating on them does nothing to change the reality today, nor does it make Israel's current campaign any more justifiable.
Click to expand...
Actually it does.

Had Hamas come to the table and agreed a settlement, none of this would be happening. Unless of course, they reneged on any deal.
Hamas were elected by Palestinians to represent them. They have repaid the honour by sacrificing thousands of their people to continue their Jew hating crusade.
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
Actually it does.

Had Hamas come to the table and agreed a settlement, none of this would be happening. Unless of course, they reneged on any deal.
Hamas were elected by Palestinians to represent them. They have repaid the honour by sacrificing thousands of their people to continue their Jew hating crusade.
Click to expand...
By what means were HAMAS elected to represent Palestinians ? A democratic vote ?
So by that logic , all the UK were behind Tory Bliar taking the British military into Iraq ?
People don't deserve what Israel is inflicting on them, because of their leadership. Goat herders and carpenters, doctors and olive farmers deserve for their families to die in their thousands, and be starved and have their homes and neighbourhoods destroyed because of their leadership ? That is quite an assumption to think all Palestinians are terrorists.
On a par with thinking all Jewish people are behind Holocaust 2, in Gaza.
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
By what means were HAMAS elected to represent Palestinians ? A democratic vote ?
So by that logic , all the UK were behind Tory Bliar taking the British military into Iraq ?
People don't deserve what Israel is inflicting on them, because of their leadership. Goat herders and carpenters, doctors and olive farmers deserve for their families to die in their thousands, and be starved and have their homes and neighbourhoods destroyed because of their leadership ? That is quite an assumption to think all Palestinians are terrorists.
On a par with thinking all Jewish people are behind Holocaust 2, in Gaza.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't mean that.

It means that Palestinians are paying the price for having a bunch of Jew hating scumbags as their leadership.
Whether they deserve it or not is rather beside the point. It is a consequence of decisions taken by men corrupted by power and religious insanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top