The prime minister said he won’t allow the Palestinian Authority to take over Gaza, his sharpest comments yet against the White House plan for after the war.
That’s a very hard line stance you have there. That sort of uncompromising attitude is exactly what both Hamas and the Israeli right-wing have been advocating for years. Sticking uncompromisingly to your principles makes for great drama, but is really the opposite of effective diplomacy.
I wouldn’t want to apply the process proposed for Palestine and Israel to Ukraine and Russia. I’m not sure why you would want me to defend that. I don’t agree with that solution for Ukraine. It’s a completely different situation. Again, this where I think you are going wrong and perhaps misunderstanding me. People who just want to talk about principles and which side is more morally correct are the ones moving the two sides farther apart. Think realpolitik.
Like I said, uncompromising principles make for great drama, but you need an actual realistic plan. How exactly would this uncompromising stance you propose work? Do you think the Arab countries will come to Palestine’s rescue militarily? Not happening. Do you think it will be like South Africa and the whole world will sanction Israel into submission? That’s not happening either. It’s not the 1980s anymore. Bono and the gang aren’t going to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What is the actual realistic alternative to the two-state incremental path I outlined above?
Why not? I can only think of one difference, and that’s race.
LOL, what? That sounds like a you-problem, not a me-problem. You do realize that Jews and Palestinians are both Semites, right? You also realize that European have killed more Jews than all of the rest of the world combined, right? Also, in the case pf Ukraine, you may recall that Aryan types despise Slavs just as much as Jews. What you are suggesting makes no sense. It’s a meme, not an analysis.
Also, I wouldn’t necessarily suggest the Israeli-Palestinian incremental two-state process for Taiwan-China, North Korea-South Korea, Sudan, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Yemen-Saudi, or any of the other dozens of global conflicts involving any combination of races and ethnicities. Oh wait, wait, wait, I’ve got a good one. Tell me about how I prefer the UK in the UK-Argentina Falklands dispute because the British are ever so slightly more Nordic looking, on average, than Argentinians, and not because Argentina is an economic and political basket case and was ruled by a military junta during the Falklands War.
You’ve got some serious blinders on, my friend, if you see the world through so narrow and reductive a lense. Reducing the whole world to shades of brown vs. shades of pink or tan is not a good way to understand the world. It also makes it difficult to have anything like a good-faith debate.
That’s a very hard line stance you have there. That sort of uncompromising attitude is exactly what both Hamas and the Israeli right-wing have been advocating for years. Sticking uncompromisingly to your principles makes for great drama, but is really the opposite of effective diplomacy.
Removed by mod
I wouldn’t want to apply the process proposed for Palestine and Israel to Ukraine and Russia. I’m not sure why you would want me to defend that. I don’t agree with that solution for Ukraine. It’s a completely different situation. Again, this where I think you are going wrong and perhaps misunderstanding me. People who just want to talk about principles and which side is more morally correct are the ones moving the two sides farther apart. Think realpolitik.
Like I said, uncompromising principles make for great drama, but you need an actual realistic plan. How exactly would this uncompromising stance you propose work? Do you think the Arab countries will come to Palestine’s rescue militarily? Not happening. Do you think it will be like South Africa and the whole world will sanction Israel into submission? That’s not happening either. It’s not the 1980s anymore. Bono and the gang aren’t going to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What is the actual realistic alternative to the two-state incremental path I outlined above?
Removed by mod
LOL, what? That sounds like a you-problem, not a me-problem. You do realize that Jews and Palestinians are both Semites, right? You also realize that European have killed more Jews than all of the rest of the world combined, right? Also, in the case pf Ukraine, you may recall that Aryan types despise Slavs just as much as Jews. What you are suggesting makes no sense. It’s a meme, not an analysis.
Also, I wouldn’t necessarily suggest the Israeli-Palestinian incremental two-state process for Taiwan-China, North Korea-South Korea, Sudan, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Yemen-Saudi, or any of the other dozens of global conflicts involving any combination of races and ethnicities. Oh wait, wait, wait, I’ve got a good one. Tell me about how I prefer the UK in the UK-Argentina Falklands dispute because the British are ever so slightly more Nordic looking, on average, than Argentinians, and not because Argentina is an economic and political basket case and was ruled by a military junta during the Falklands War.
You’ve got some serious blinders on, my friend, if you see the world through so narrow and reductive a lense. Reducing the whole world to shades of brown vs. shades of pink or tan is not a good way to understand the world. It also makes it difficult to have anything like a good-faith debate.