General News

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

key element: Zionism is the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. What defines Palestine. 

 I was surprised when I first saw this map because I never realised how little of the land Israel was ‘given’ in the partition plan. (almost all of the land south of Beersheba is the Negev desert). 
 

the decision of the Arab countries surrounding Israel to attack it in 1948 and to instruct the Arab population living there to flee was possibly the worst strategic call in modern history. 

Edited 4 October 2024 by st albans fox

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

 I was surprised when I first saw this map because I never realised how little of the land Israel was ‘given’ in the partition plan. 
 

the decision of the Arab countries surrounding Israel to attack it in 1948 and to instruct the Arab population living there to flee was possibly the worst strategic call in modern history. 

Ah, so under Zionism. The Jerusalem goes back to Palestine. Temple Mount is under international control and Israel reduces to the red area ? If Bibi just explained that, we might get a bit of peace. 
 

Again, what defines Palestine in the concept of Zionism - genuinely asking as I don’t know ? Is it the total eradication of the rights, occupation and relevance of the Palestinian people ? Or is it the land in red ? Or is it the 1967 borders ? Or is it the land in its current form ? Because I don’t know.
 

 

[Foxdiamond]

What is Labour MP Dawn Butler on about in her so called poem. Surely it is racist claptrap that would be pounced on if reversed and coming from a white MP leading to the sack. Not reported by BBC it seems 

[st albans fox]

30 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Ah, so under Zionism. The Jerusalem goes back to Palestine. Temple Mount is under international control and Israel reduces to the red area ? If Bibi just explained that, we might get a bit of peace. 
 

Again, what defines Palestine in the concept of Zionism - genuinely asking as I don’t know ? Is it the total eradication of the rights, occupation and relevance of the Palestinian people ? Or is it the land in red ? Or is it the 1967 borders ? Or is it the land in its current form ? Because I don’t know.
 

The armistice agreement of 1949 set new legal boundaries.  I would say that Zionism is, by its nature, expansionist within the biblical homeland of Judaism. 

We can’t know how things would have played out if the Arab countries had accepted the 1947 partition plan. Israel has expanded its territory because three times its Arab neighbours have gone to war against it and three times lost. the fact they lost in 1948/49 is quite remarkable.  I suppose you can understand why they thought it was a good idea to launch the war, given that Israel’s army and air force were fledgling at best. 
 

In the period pre mid seventies it was the Arab countries who continually miscalculated. Thereafter the ‘Palestinians’ took over their interest in both Gaza and the West Bank because Egypt and Jordan had lost control in the 67 and 73 wars. Prior to 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan. (Golan heights part of Syria - the Palestinians have never been interested in settling in that area preferring that it be returned to Syria).

 

I wouldn’t think that Zionism has much detailed interest in what defines Palestine.  But within that expansionist ideology it didn’t start three wars with its neighbours and it left Gaza in 2005 (forcibly evicting Israelis settled there ) and it offered the PLA pretty much all the West Bank in 2001.. 
 

so whilst Zionism is imo expansionist (within that biblical area), the Arabs would control much of what is now Israel (and occupied lands) if they’d kept their guns in their holsters and even allowing for those 3 poor calls, the Palestinians could possibly be governing (with no Israeli interference) both Gaza and the West Bank if Arafat hadn’t been scared of assassination for agreeing a deal. 
Whilst Israel would have wanted a big say in what was allowed militarily in both areas 20 years ago, without any subsequent security problems, by now the two countries could be prospering in mutual co existence. 
 

How far away from that we seem to be now - I think a Harris win in November may reshape the speed at which something can be done to move things forward. 

[bovril]

45 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

What is Labour MP Dawn Butler on about in her so called poem. Surely it is racist claptrap that would be pounced on if reversed and coming from a white MP leading to the sack. Not reported by BBC it seems 

Unbelievable levels of ethno-narcissism. The kind of thing I'd expect to hear from a far-right politician in Turkey. Unfortunately it is tolerated and indeed promoted when it comes from certain groups.

[Bellend Sebastian]

45 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

What is Labour MP Dawn Butler on about in her so called poem. Surely it is racist claptrap that would be pounced on if reversed and coming from a white MP leading to the sack. Not reported by BBC it seems 

I think the question we should be asking is, is it as good as Ryan Giggs poetry about his lover or Lewis Hamilton's about Princess Diana as for me these represent the pinnacle of human achievement and I struggle to get excited about anything else if I'm honest 

[Foxdiamond]

13 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I think the question we should be asking is, is it as good as Ryan Giggs poetry about his lover or Lewis Hamilton's about Princess Diana as for me these represent the pinnacle of human achievement and I struggle to get excited about anything else if I'm honest 

Perhaps Dawn Butler should take up football or formula 1 instead

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, bovril said:

Unbelievable levels of ethno-narcissism. The kind of thing I'd expect to hear from a far-right politician in Turkey. Unfortunately it is tolerated and indeed promoted when it comes from certain groups.

 

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

What is Labour MP Dawn Butler on about in her so called poem. Surely it is racist claptrap that would be pounced on if reversed and coming from a white MP leading to the sack. Not reported by BBC it seems 

Supremacism of any kind is shit, that's a given.

 

Mdme Butler and those that think like the views on that poem, however, are not and in all likelihood never will be in any position to make good on those ideas. That perhaps differentiates them from other similar supremacist ideals.

Edited 4 October 2024 by leicsmac

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

Supremacism of any kind is shit, that's a given.

 

Mdme Butler and those that think like the views on that poem, however, are not and in all likelihood never will be in any position to make good on those ideas. That perhaps differentiates them from other similar supremacist ideals.

Glad she ain't my mp

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

The armistice agreement of 1949 set new legal boundaries.  I would say that Zionism is, by its nature, expansionist within the biblical homeland of Judaism. 

We can’t know how things would have played out if the Arab countries had accepted the 1947 partition plan. Israel has expanded its territory because three times its Arab neighbours have gone to war against it and three times lost. the fact they lost in 1948/49 is quite remarkable.  I suppose you can understand why they thought it was a good idea to launch the war, given that Israel’s army and air force were fledgling at best. 
 

In the period pre mid seventies it was the Arab countries who continually miscalculated. Thereafter the ‘Palestinians’ took over their interest in both Gaza and the West Bank because Egypt and Jordan had lost control in the 67 and 73 wars. Prior to 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan. (Golan heights part of Syria - the Palestinians have never been interested in settling in that area preferring that it be returned to Syria).

 

I wouldn’t think that Zionism has much detailed interest in what defines Palestine.  But within that expansionist ideology it didn’t start three wars with its neighbours and it left Gaza in 2005 (forcibly evicting Israelis settled there ) and it offered the PLA pretty much all the West Bank in 2001.. 
 

so whilst Zionism is imo expansionist (within that biblical area), the Arabs would control much of what is now Israel (and occupied lands) if they’d kept their guns in their holsters and even allowing for those 3 poor calls, the Palestinians could possibly be governing (with no Israeli interference) both Gaza and the West Bank if Arafat hadn’t been scared of assassination for agreeing a deal. 
Whilst Israel would have wanted a big say in what was allowed militarily in both areas 20 years ago, without any subsequent security problems, by now the two countries could be prospering in mutual co existence. 
 

How far away from that we seem to be now - I think a Harris win in November may reshape the speed at which something can be done to move things forward. 

 

This is the “holy land” under (interpreted) world Zionist org in 1918. That expansion still has some way to go!

 

My point is, your original comment was that Zionism was simply set up for the establishment of the Jewish state. I think we agree it’s the establishment of the Jewish state but only in Palestine. We now think that means in accordance with biblical boundaries - which this map shows (? - question mark as I’m not sure). As it’s perfectly legitimate to criticise other extremist ideologies, the Zionist ideology falls into that spectrum - Zionist criticism fine. Anti-Semitism - absolutely not. Being able to criticise a political ideology should be fundamental to anyone’s belief system,
 

If we are using the bible as the source, the originals to that land were canaanites - Arabs - so when do we stop going back ?

 

The point I’m making is its merging antisemitism with Zionism that allows settlers to do what they are doing. I challenge that both countries would be prospering now on agreement of the various land proposals for two reasons - 1, you think Hamas and that thinking would just accept Jewish lands in any form next to them. The Nakba is ingrained and that doesn’t disappear with a UN resolution. 2. If Israel maintains the Zionist ideology, less land is creating more far right, settler supporting destruction and the IDF would be happily enforcing it. 
 

The problems are far more deep rooted and created by neither Arabs and Jews but Europeans. I genuinely think it will never see peace in my lifetime nor my kids. And one of the fundamental problems we have is Temple Mount. And the extremist ideology on both sides. What do we do with that ?

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

Supremacism of any kind is shit, that's a given.

 

Mdme Butler and those that think like the views on that poem, however, are not and in all likelihood never will be in any position to make good on those ideas. That perhaps differentiates them from other similar supremacist ideals.

LCFC winning the Champions League 5 years in a row?

[Trav Le Bleu]

39 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

 

This is the “holy land” under (interpreted) world Zionist org in 1918. That expansion still has some way to go!

 

My point is, your original comment was that Zionism was simply set up for the establishment of the Jewish state. I think we agree it’s the establishment of the Jewish state but only in Palestine. We now think that means in accordance with biblical boundaries - which this map shows (? - question mark as I’m not sure). As it’s perfectly legitimate to criticise other extremist ideologies, the Zionist ideology falls into that spectrum - Zionist criticism fine. Anti-Semitism - absolutely not. Being able to criticise a political ideology should be fundamental to anyone’s belief system,
 

If we are using the bible as the source, the originals to that land were canaanites - Arabs - so when do we stop going back ?

 

The point I’m making is its merging antisemitism with Zionism that allows settlers to do what they are doing. I challenge that both countries would be prospering now on agreement of the various land proposals for two reasons - 1, you think Hamas and that thinking would just accept Jewish lands in any form next to them. The Nakba is ingrained and that doesn’t disappear with a UN resolution. 2. If Israel maintains the Zionist ideology, less land is creating more far right, settler supporting destruction and the IDF would be happily enforcing it. 
 

The problems are far more deep rooted and created by neither Arabs and Jews but Europeans. I genuinely think it will never see peace in my lifetime nor my kids. And one of the fundamental problems we have is Temple Mount. And the extremist ideology on both sides. What do we do with that ?

Whilst the UN were giving back Israel chunks of land they hadn't owned for almost 2 millennia, how come they didn't give England back all the bits that are now so-called France? And far more recently I might add!

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

LCFC winning the Champions League 5 years in a row?

The exception that proves the rule.

[Spudulike]

3 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

What is Labour MP Dawn Butler on about in her so called poem. Surely it is racist claptrap that would be pounced on if reversed and coming from a white MP leading to the sack. Not reported by BBC it seems 

She's backtracked a bit after being called out. So much for Starmers reassurance this sort of stuff wouldn't be tolerated in the Labour Party.

 

 

[Daggers]

Can't see what problem anyone would have with that poem - especially when it's not directed at you, it's directed at these people...

 

 

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

 

This is the “holy land” under (interpreted) world Zionist org in 1918. That expansion still has some way to go!

 

My point is, your original comment was that Zionism was simply set up for the establishment of the Jewish state. I think we agree it’s the establishment of the Jewish state but only in Palestine. We now think that means in accordance with biblical boundaries - which this map shows (? - question mark as I’m not sure). As it’s perfectly legitimate to criticise other extremist ideologies, the Zionist ideology falls into that spectrum - Zionist criticism fine. Anti-Semitism - absolutely not. Being able to criticise a political ideology should be fundamental to anyone’s belief system,
 

If we are using the bible as the source, the originals to that land were canaanites - Arabs - so when do we stop going back ?

 

The point I’m making is its merging antisemitism with Zionism that allows settlers to do what they are doing. I challenge that both countries would be prospering now on agreement of the various land proposals for two reasons - 1, you think Hamas and that thinking would just accept Jewish lands in any form next to them. The Nakba is ingrained and that doesn’t disappear with a UN resolution. 2. If Israel maintains the Zionist ideology, less land is creating more far right, settler supporting destruction and the IDF would be happily enforcing it. 
 

The problems are far more deep rooted and created by neither Arabs and Jews but Europeans. I genuinely think it will never see peace in my lifetime nor my kids. And one of the fundamental problems we have is Temple Mount. And the extremist ideology on both sides. What do we do with that ?

I’ve not see any evidence that even the RW settlers are interested in areas to the east of the Jordan.(which I think is pretty inhospitable in any case,). The Negev and Sinai is unwanted for obvious reasons. Syria beyond the Golan and s Lebanon - whilst Israel occupies the western golan for strategic reasons, the heights themselves are generally inhabited by Druze. Israel occupied s Lebanon for 18 years in the run up to 2000. There were no attempts to settle there. 
from what I can see, it’s only some areas of the West Bank which are subject to illegal settlements. We also know that there were settlements in Gaza pre 2005. I don’t see that even the more extreme proponents of Zionism would attempt to expand east beyond areas of the West Bank currently being ‘settled’ and no doubt they’d be keen to get access to parts of Gaza.  Your map from 2018 of ‘biblical Israel’ is probably not relevant now. 

[Foxdiamond]

12 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Can't see what problem anyone would have with that poem - especially when it's not directed at you, it's directed at these people...

 

 

I think she should have been more specific in targeting the bigots rather than rambling

[Mickyblueeyes]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I’ve not see any evidence that even the RW settlers are interested in areas to the east of the Jordan.(which I think is pretty inhospitable in any case,). The Negev and Sinai is unwanted for obvious reasons. Syria beyond the Golan and s Lebanon - whilst Israel occupies the western golan for strategic reasons, the heights themselves are generally inhabited by Druze. Israel occupied s Lebanon for 18 years in the run up to 2000. There were no attempts to settle there. 
from what I can see, it’s only some areas of the West Bank which are subject to illegal settlements. We also know that there were settlements in Gaza pre 2005. I don’t see that even the more extreme proponents of Zionism would attempt to expand east beyond areas of the West Bank currently being ‘settled’ and no doubt they’d be keen to get access to parts of Gaza.  Your map from 2018 of ‘biblical Israel’ is probably not relevant now. 

*1918. Not my map by the way, Ok I understand now. According to your original comment, Zionism had a crazy idea back when it started but has mellowed a bit ? I get your comment now, attempts to give legitimacy to the Zionist organisation, in recent years isn’t a great move - have. Literally shared it on your comments, they are an expansion group based on the bible. Sorry, my misunderstanding. 👍
 

. 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

If only Stanley Johnson had pulled out too.

 

 

 

[Daggers]

8 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I think she should have been more specific in targeting the bigots rather than rambling

I believe you’ll find it altogether obvious if you listen to the words again - especially if you bear in mind Black history month and everything and the vile racist abuse she’s permanently subjected to.online.

[Spudulike]

10 hours ago, Daggers said:

Can't see what problem anyone would have with that poem - especially when it's not directed at you, it's directed at these people...

 

 

That's grim. Unfortunately, UK law can't touch them as most of the vile abuse comes from overseas. Don't know if this stuff did.

[Dunge]

I get that Dawn Butler is responding to vile white supremacists and will have had those specifically in mind. But what she’s posted there is pretty blatantly black supremacist.

[bovril]

38 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I get that Dawn Butler is responding to vile white supremacists and will have had those specifically in mind. But what she’s posted there is pretty blatantly black supremacist.

Yes it is and I don't think there's much point wasting energy trying to debate people who claim it isn't.

[Trumpet]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

That's grim. Unfortunately, UK law can't touch them as most of the vile abuse comes from overseas. Don't know if this stuff did.

Not saying this sort of thing doesn’t get posted online by real people, but I’d expect bots to be heavily involved in some of those posts.

[ozleicester]

On 04/10/2024 at 05:52, Foxdiamond said:

And of course the Aussies were in Vietnam for their own reasons I guess.

 

22 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Favours from the Americans, most likely.

 

I'm curious to know if there was another reason.

Arse licking of the USA (and UK) runs deep in the chip on the shoulder aussies.