Israel And The Palestinians (now with added Iran/Lebanon)

[coprolite]

23 minutes ago, virginton said:

'International law' wasn't dropped down from the sky for everyone to follow. It's just a set of rules established by the great powers of the mid-20th (partly late 19th) century to regulate conflict. It has always been contradicted by political concepts like national self-determination, which requires a territorial state to be exercised in full. We have just muddled through picking and choosing between those ideas since 1945. 

What we are seeing around the world now is the inevitable breakdown of that system under the weight of its contradictions. 

Like all law it protects the interests of the legislators first and foremost but there is still an established basis in treaties and the like. 

The right to self determination is an established right in international law. It hasn't always been but has been a principle of the UN since it was founded. Self determination doesn't necessarily require a state though. It does, as you say, require a territory. 

So when the likes of Stan say something along the lines of "clearly the Jews/Palestinians have a right to a homeland" he is speaking shite (legally). 

A British Jew or a British ethnic Palestinian living in London or New York has no more of a right to a homeland where Israel currently is than I do. 

I find it hard to see the argument for a moral right either. Stan's argument about why Jews should have a homeland could easily apply to Roma. They don't have the benefit of their history being in abook that's culturally significant to the ruling elite though. Do they have a right to a single territory based on a two millenia previous occupation? I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't exist or shouldn't be a home state for Israeli Jews but that assigning a state as a homeland for people worldwide just on the basis of common culture is dumb.  This is less obviously shite than the legal position though and there are arguments. 

I do agree that the current international legal order looks like it's creaking under the strain. But the makeshift and ad hoc nature of much of it might make it more robust. US v China trade shite might break bits of the WTO without affecting the UN too badly, for example. 

[coprolite]

21 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I don’t think adherence to international law is of any interest to the Israeli government.

Not their adherence obviously

[Bob in Denny]

11 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

The UK public?

 

11 hours ago, MazzyStar said:

The word I should have used was 'control' and is not an antisemitic gesture but facts...

[101]

This seems like a pretty odd thing for the UK police to be doing, would have thought this was firmly in MI6s remit.

 

 

[Tony Ferrino]

3 minutes ago, 101 said:

This seems like a pretty odd thing for the UK police to be doing, would have thought this was firmly in MI6s remit.

 

 

Maybe running out of gore to share on their WhatsApp group.

[Granny Danger]

6 minutes ago, 101 said:

This seems like a pretty odd thing for the UK police to be doing, would have thought this was firmly in MI6s remit.

 

 

I wonder how many emails from Rachel Riley and David Baddiel it will take before they scrap the idea?

[Wee-Bey]

45 minutes ago, 101 said:

This seems like a pretty odd thing for the UK police to be doing, would have thought this was firmly in MI6s remit.

 

 

Shared Edinburgh x

[101]

Israel have now bombed 2 major airports in Syria, but of a left field move unless they are using US guidance systems.

[diegomarahenry]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

I wonder how many emails from Rachel Riley and David Baddiel it will take before they scrap the idea?

I don’t care about either of them, I saw people slagging her during the Corbin era and often see people defend Baddiel when he is subjected to anti-semitism and also condemned for blacking up. But they aren’t in my vista and I didn’t really care one way or the other about them.

Ive had to block the two of them and American comedian Sarah Silverman because they were all over my timeline, seemingly trying to make the conflict all about them and how they were feeling about it.

[beefybake]

2 hours ago, coprolite said:

Like all law it protects the interests of the legislators first and foremost but there is still an established basis in treaties and the like. 

The right to self determination is an established right in international law. It hasn't always been but has been a principle of the UN since it was founded. Self determination doesn't necessarily require a state though. It does, as you say, require a territory. 

So when the likes of Stan say something along the lines of "clearly the Jews/Palestinians have a right to a homeland" he is speaking shite (legally). 

A British Jew or a British ethnic Palestinian living in London or New York has no more of a right to a homeland where Israel currently is than I do. 

I find it hard to see the argument for a moral right either. Stan's argument about why Jews should have a homeland could easily apply to Roma. They don't have the benefit of their history being in abook that's culturally significant to the ruling elite though. Do they have a right to a single territory based on a two millenia previous occupation? I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't exist or shouldn't be a home state for Israeli Jews but that assigning a state as a homeland for people worldwide just on the basis of common culture is dumb.  This is less obviously shite than the legal position though and there are arguments. 

I do agree that the current international legal order looks like it's creaking under the strain. But the makeshift and ad hoc nature of much of it might make it more robust. US v China trade shite might break bits of the WTO without affecting the UN too badly, for example. 

Well, Stan Collymore's view seems a well put precis of history, and how things ought to be.

Yours is an analytic, legalistic takedown.

Do you have anything actually constuctive to contribute ?

Israel has spent the last X number of years doing its damndest to kill the idea of a  two state solution.

I believe in the end,  there has to be a shared state.

Edited October 12, 2023 by beefybake

[RuMoore]

9 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

I don’t care about either of them, I saw people slagging her during the Corbin era and often see people defend Baddiel when he is subjected to anti-semitism and also condemned for blacking up. But they aren’t in my vista and I didn’t really care one way or the other about them.

Ive had to block the two of them and American comedian Sarah Silverman because they were all over my timeline, seemingly trying to make the conflict all about them and how they were feeling about it.

They're two people I often see referenced on here but very rarely ever see anything that they've said and I'm on Twitter quite a lot. I can't recall seeing anything detestable from them in the past decade, I'm going to go out on a limb and through judging the posters that have mentioned them presume they weren't a fan of Corbyn?

Some people just absolutley love to consume content that they know will rile them up, a good ol' hate read. 

[invergowrie arab]

2 hours ago, Bob in Denny said:

 

The word I should have used was 'control' and is not an antisemitic gesture but facts...

Jews control the media is very much an antisemitic trope pal.

[diegomarahenry]

10 minutes ago, RuMoore said:

They're two people I often see referenced on here but very rarely ever see anything that they've said and I'm on Twitter quite a lot. I can't recall seeing anything detestable from them in the past decade, I'm going to go out on a limb and through judging the posters that have mentioned them presume they weren't a fan of Corbyn?

Some people just absolutley love to consume content that they know will rile them up, a good ol' hate read. 

I know RR wasn’t. No idea about DB

I can only assume their posts are appearing on my timeline because of the amount of interaction they are getting just now. 

I have to google a lot of people that folk are angry about, the last one was a preacher that was fired from GB news. Never heard of him before or since. 
 

 

[Wee-Bey]

What is the internet for, if not for dunking on the people you don't like ?

[GHF-23]

23 minutes ago, RuMoore said:

They're two people I often see referenced on here but very rarely ever see anything that they've said and I'm on Twitter quite a lot. I can't recall seeing anything detestable from them in the past decade, I'm going to go out on a limb and through judging the posters that have mentioned them presume they weren't a fan of Corbyn?

Some people just absolutley love to consume content that they know will rile them up, a good ol' hate read. 

I think Riley definitely yes, I have seen a handful of pretty weird takes from her over the years but not really seen much of what she's said to make people think badly of her (actually I've just remembered she posed in a Tshirt saying "Jeremy Corbyn is a racist endeavour", and I think is associated with the types who are constantly berating beloved children's author and Jewish man Michael Rosen as an antisemite - so I think there's some slightly deranged behaviour there).

Baddiel is absolutely awful though, I'm surprised if you use twitter you've managed to avoid his shift to trying to be a Public Intellectual(^TM). He says a lot of stupid and quite weird shit about race and then sends people screenshots of his book, which from reviews I've read is basically about how it's not fair that he, personally, is considered White. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by GHF-23

[GHF-23]

3 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

What is the internet for, if not for dunking on the people you don't like ?

Also this, I think a lot of folk who say "I can't believe person X would spend time on the internet getting annoyed at..." are themselves constantly getting annoyed at things which would seem bizarre to the person they're discussing.

[coprolite]

24 minutes ago, beefybake said:

Well, Stan Collymore's view seems a well put precis of history, and how things ought to be.

Yours is an analytic, legalistic takedown.

Do you have anything actually constuctive to contribute ?

Israel has spent the last X number of years doing its damndest to kill the idea of a  two state solution.

I believe in the end,  there has to be a shared state.

 

27 minutes ago, beefybake said:

Well, Stan Collymore's view seems a well put precis of history, and how things ought to be.

Yours is an analytic, legalistic takedown.

Do you have anything actually constuctive to contribute ?

Israel has spent the last X number of years doing its damndest to kill the idea of a  two state solution.

I believe in the end,  there has to be a shared state.

It wasn’t an attempt at a “takedown”. I assume that’s some sort of twitter thing?

I said it was admirable in its two sidedness. 

I took issue with one part of his argument and explained why. Not just legalistically but also the principle of the thing. 

I thought it was a fairly constructive and grown up approach to discussing the complex issues.

If you want my constructive opinion on your view that there has to be a shared state, it’s that that’s what I’d expect someone with poo in their head to say, mr poopy poo poo head.

[carpetmonster]

Riley is desperate to make herself be seen as a victim. The other night 'she was going for baklava' (look! I'm eating an Arab food, don't you dare accuse me of not trying to be inclusive) and some folks waving a flag terrified her so much she had to phone the polis. 

 

[Silvio Tattiescone]

Aren't baklavas an IRA thing?

[Wee-Bey]

Riley has massive Eve Barlow vibes, Baddiel positions himself as an anti racism expert after doing blackface.

Both should be ignored, but the 'long Corbyn' afflicting both some of his supporters and opponents mean that they still appear relevant in certain areas of twitter.