Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Israel - time to exclude them from world sport?

12345679»

Comments

  • Options
    It seems to me the eventual solution will have to be based on principles that are as simple as they are difficult for each side to swallow. First (and foremost) whether it was right or wrong to set up the state of Israel it is there now and it is going to stay there, with the same status as any other country. Hamas and the Arab world will have to recognise that. Once they do then the they take the moral high ground and Israel has no justification for the dreadful treatment of Palestinians (which I think is unjustifiable in any case) or for not moving back to the 1967 borders (or some other negotiated position - but one negotiated from a position of strength by Palestinians). The constitution of Hamas calls for the 'obliteration' of Israel, to be replaced by an Islamic state. It calls for the killing of Jews - all Jews. I don't know if that is rhetoric on their part or not but if I was an Israeli I wouldn't give an inch until they renounced it.
  • Options
    centurion said:


    One former acquaintance never spoke to me again after I said that I had Palestinian students in my class. In fact she said directly 'why would you teach them?' She then went on to describe them as more or less breeding like rabbits and being brainwashed psychos from they're barely out of nappies.

    Perhaps you should have thrown this back in her face: "With an average of 3 children per woman, Israel also has the highest fertility rate in the OECD by a considerable margin, and much higher than the OECD average of 1.7".

    Pot and kettle...
  • Options
    I see the US has approved a new financial package to assist Israel in buying an anti-rocket defence system to protect itself against Hamas rockets. Strange view of the world, as Gaza would appear much more needy in this respect. Still, three cheers for Spain, who have cancelled all arms contracts with Israel. Someone in power is seeing the same news the rest of us are.
  • Options
    Education is normally the route that needs to be found, unfortunately the post above which imo is one of the finest put on here for non football threads, clearly explains that this isn't the case in this instance

    That is a sad indictment of where the current scenario can not be fixed until one country has totally wiped out another

  • Options
    24 Red said:

    It seems to me the eventual solution will have to be based on principles that are as simple as they are difficult for each side to swallow. First (and foremost) whether it was right or wrong to set up the state of Israel it is there now and it is going to stay there, with the same status as any other country. Hamas and the Arab world will have to recognise that. Once they do then the they take the moral high ground and Israel has no justification for the dreadful treatment of Palestinians (which I think is unjustifiable in any case) or for not moving back to the 1967 borders (or some other negotiated position - but one negotiated from a position of strength by Palestinians). The constitution of Hamas calls for the 'obliteration' of Israel, to be replaced by an Islamic state. It calls for the killing of Jews - all Jews. I don't know if that is rhetoric on their part or not but if I was an Israeli I wouldn't give an inch until they renounced it.

    But which Israel do Hamas and arabs recognise? The one created in 1947? The borders that UNSC resolution 242 said they must return to in 1967? The land they currently occupy? The territory that they will own in the future as the relentless bulldozing of Palestinian homes continues?
  • Options
    bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28656874

    Conflict within the UK Govt. now.
  • Options

    24 Red said:

    It seems to me the eventual solution will have to be based on principles that are as simple as they are difficult for each side to swallow. First (and foremost) whether it was right or wrong to set up the state of Israel it is there now and it is going to stay there, with the same status as any other country. Hamas and the Arab world will have to recognise that. Once they do then the they take the moral high ground and Israel has no justification for the dreadful treatment of Palestinians (which I think is unjustifiable in any case) or for not moving back to the 1967 borders (or some other negotiated position - but one negotiated from a position of strength by Palestinians). The constitution of Hamas calls for the 'obliteration' of Israel, to be replaced by an Islamic state. It calls for the killing of Jews - all Jews. I don't know if that is rhetoric on their part or not but if I was an Israeli I wouldn't give an inch until they renounced it.

    But which Israel do Hamas and arabs recognise? The one created in 1947? The borders that UNSC resolution 242 said they must return to in 1967? The land they currently occupy? The territory that they will own in the future as the relentless bulldozing of Palestinian homes continues?
    You can turn that round the other way by asking where Israel could possibly move its borders back to that would satisfy an adversary that is calling for its total obliteration. The Arab world need to recognise that the state of Israel exists and will continue to exist. Then the discussion about boundaries moves on from there.
  • Options
    24 Red said:

    24 Red said:

    It seems to me the eventual solution will have to be based on principles that are as simple as they are difficult for each side to swallow. First (and foremost) whether it was right or wrong to set up the state of Israel it is there now and it is going to stay there, with the same status as any other country. Hamas and the Arab world will have to recognise that. Once they do then the they take the moral high ground and Israel has no justification for the dreadful treatment of Palestinians (which I think is unjustifiable in any case) or for not moving back to the 1967 borders (or some other negotiated position - but one negotiated from a position of strength by Palestinians). The constitution of Hamas calls for the 'obliteration' of Israel, to be replaced by an Islamic state. It calls for the killing of Jews - all Jews. I don't know if that is rhetoric on their part or not but if I was an Israeli I wouldn't give an inch until they renounced it.

    But which Israel do Hamas and arabs recognise? The one created in 1947? The borders that UNSC resolution 242 said they must return to in 1967? The land they currently occupy? The territory that they will own in the future as the relentless bulldozing of Palestinian homes continues?
    You can turn that round the other way by asking where Israel could possibly move its borders back to that would satisfy an adversary that is calling for its total obliteration. The Arab world need to recognise that the state of Israel exists and will continue to exist. Then the discussion about boundaries moves on from there.
    Are the Israelis not motivated by the total obliteration of Palestine? What was their motivation behind attacking Lebanon? What gives Israel the right to exist in their current location apart from a huge military exercise led by the UK post war. What historic right do they have to occupy that territory?
  • Options

    24 Red said:

    24 Red said:

    It seems to me the eventual solution will have to be based on principles that are as simple as they are difficult for each side to swallow. First (and foremost) whether it was right or wrong to set up the state of Israel it is there now and it is going to stay there, with the same status as any other country. Hamas and the Arab world will have to recognise that. Once they do then the they take the moral high ground and Israel has no justification for the dreadful treatment of Palestinians (which I think is unjustifiable in any case) or for not moving back to the 1967 borders (or some other negotiated position - but one negotiated from a position of strength by Palestinians). The constitution of Hamas calls for the 'obliteration' of Israel, to be replaced by an Islamic state. It calls for the killing of Jews - all Jews. I don't know if that is rhetoric on their part or not but if I was an Israeli I wouldn't give an inch until they renounced it.

    But which Israel do Hamas and arabs recognise? The one created in 1947? The borders that UNSC resolution 242 said they must return to in 1967? The land they currently occupy? The territory that they will own in the future as the relentless bulldozing of Palestinian homes continues?
    You can turn that round the other way by asking where Israel could possibly move its borders back to that would satisfy an adversary that is calling for its total obliteration. The Arab world need to recognise that the state of Israel exists and will continue to exist. Then the discussion about boundaries moves on from there.
    Are the Israelis not motivated by the total obliteration of Palestine? What was their motivation behind attacking Lebanon? What gives Israel the right to exist in their current location apart from a huge military exercise led by the UK post war. What historic right do they have to occupy that territory?
    What 'historic right' do white Americans, Spanish Mexicans, white Australians (I could go on) have to occupy their countries? Whether or not you agree with the decision to create Israel (and their are well-rehearsed arguments both ways), a prerequisite for peace is that everyone accepts it is there to stay. Debating the historic rights and wrongs won't save a single life. And no, Israelis are not motivated by the total obliteration of Palestine. Where have you read that? Which is not to say Israel's actions in Palestine are excusable, they are not.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    From yesterday's demonstration calling for a halt to the siege on Gaza

    image
  • Options
    That's presumably the same Chelsea which has famously never had a far right element to its support?
  • Options

    That's presumably the same Chelsea which has famously never had a far right element to its support?

    Perhaps good to know that they are not all rabid rightwingers?


  • Options
    Maybe but a bit presumptuous (of them) to claim they're representing the club.
  • Options
    They are not doing that, they are stating that they are Chelsea fans who oppose Israeli apartheid. No different to when people wrap themselves in the St Georges flag to attend right wing events. What is it that you really have a problem with?
  • Options
    Why should anyone care what football team they support? Seems a bit odd that's all, and it probably wouldn't occur to them that their club's owner is strongly pro-Israel and might object to his club's brand being inappropriately used in this way.

    I am sure "Doris and Bert Against Apartheid" would have sufficed.
  • Options
    OK, thanks for explaining. They were totally aware of the clubs views and just wished to say that not all supporters agreed. Doris and Bert refused to comment ;-)
  • Options


    But which Israel do Hamas and arabs recognise? The one created in 1947? The borders that UNSC resolution 242 said they must return to in 1967? The land they currently occupy? The territory that they will own in the future as the relentless bulldozing of Palestinian homes continues?

    You can turn that round the other way by asking where Israel could possibly move its borders back to that would satisfy an adversary that is calling for its total obliteration. The Arab world need to recognise that the state of Israel exists and will continue to exist. Then the discussion about boundaries moves on from there.

    Are the Israelis not motivated by the total obliteration of Palestine? What was their motivation behind attacking Lebanon? What gives Israel the right to exist in their current location apart from a huge military exercise led by the UK post war. What historic right do they have to occupy that territory?

    What 'historic right' do white Americans, Spanish Mexicans, white Australians (I could go on) have to occupy their countries? Whether or not you agree with the decision to create Israel (and their are well-rehearsed arguments both ways), a prerequisite for peace is that everyone accepts it is there to stay. Debating the historic rights and wrongs won't save a single life. And no, Israelis are not motivated by the total obliteration of Palestine. Where have you read that? Which is not to say Israel's actions in Palestine are excusable, they are not.

    24 Red. Have you forgotten the Arab Peace Plan that has been on the table for around 7 years now that offers full recognition of Israel by all Arab states but which Israel has so far refused to discuss? Are these the enemies calling for Israels obliteration that you refer to?
    I have read many quotes from Israeli politicians (Prime Minisers down) calling for, in so many words, the destruction of the Palestinian poeple.
    Would you like some of those quotes to get an understanding of the ingrained hatred of Arabs felt by many Israelis and of how conveying this hatred to the Israeli population is now considered acceptable?

    Salaam

    Shalom

    Peas
  • Options
    scidbox said:



    But which Israel do Hamas and arabs recognise? The one created in 1947? The borders that UNSC resolution 242 said they must return to in 1967? The land they currently occupy? The territory that they will own in the future as the relentless bulldozing of Palestinian homes continues?

    You can turn that round the other way by asking where Israel could possibly move its borders back to that would satisfy an adversary that is calling for its total obliteration. The Arab world need to recognise that the state of Israel exists and will continue to exist. Then the discussion about boundaries moves on from there.

    Are the Israelis not motivated by the total obliteration of Palestine? What was their motivation behind attacking Lebanon? What gives Israel the right to exist in their current location apart from a huge military exercise led by the UK post war. What historic right do they have to occupy that territory?

    What 'historic right' do white Americans, Spanish Mexicans, white Australians (I could go on) have to occupy their countries? Whether or not you agree with the decision to create Israel (and their are well-rehearsed arguments both ways), a prerequisite for peace is that everyone accepts it is there to stay. Debating the historic rights and wrongs won't save a single life. And no, Israelis are not motivated by the total obliteration of Palestine. Where have you read that? Which is not to say Israel's actions in Palestine are excusable, they are not.

    24 Red. Have you forgotten the Arab Peace Plan that has been on the table for around 7 years now that offers full recognition of Israel by all Arab states but which Israel has so far refused to discuss? Are these the enemies calling for Israels obliteration that you refer to?
    I have read many quotes from Israeli politicians (Prime Minisers down) calling for, in so many words, the destruction of the Palestinian poeple.
    Would you like some of those quotes to get an understanding of the ingrained hatred of Arabs felt by many Israelis and of how conveying this hatred to the Israeli population is now considered acceptable?

    Salaam

    Shalom

    Peas


    As a matter of fact I had forgotten the Arab Peace Plan, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Wikipedia has quite a good entry on it. The plan is rejected by Hamas which carried out a suicide bombing on the same day the plan was launched and escalated the intifada, which in turn led to the notorious 'peace wall'. The attitude in Israel appears to be more nuanced than you suggest (possibly it is too within Hamas), and it still looks like the best option on the table - a solution based on recognition of Israel. By all means link to some quotes from the Israeli Prime Minister down calling for the destruction of Palestine (I'm genuinely interested). It wasn't my point that Israel are the 'good guys' and the Palestinians are the 'bad guys', or that there isn't anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism on the part of Israelis, or that Israel is not guilty of inhumane treatment of Palestinians. My point was that a two state solution is the only viable option in response to some of the more extreme comments from one poster in particular about whether Israel has a right to exist.
  • Options
    this one was never shut down? did the moderators agree with the subject matter? is that what is important?
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!