Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
The Cyprus treaty has three guarantors: Greece, Turkey and the UK. Only one of those is neutral. The main requirement is the capability to restore the terms of the agreement, so big player overseeing small squabble.rjsterry said:
Ah, much clearer (sorry, a bit slow today). Aren't guarantors supposed to be vaguely neutral in the conflict, which you could obviously hardly say of Iran.TheBigBean said:
They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.rjsterry said:
I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.TheBigBean said:
Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.rjsterry said:
Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?TheBigBean said:
All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.rjsterry said:
Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.TheBigBean said:
He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.rjsterry said:
I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.TheBigBean said:If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.
If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.
They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.
My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.
Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.0 -
Greece and Turkey being somewhat more trustworthy, and not governed at the whim of religious fundamentalists.TheBigBean said:
The Cyprus treaty has three guarantors: Greece, Turkey and the UK. Only one of those is neutral. The main requirement is the capability to restore the terms of the agreement, so big player overseeing small squabble.rjsterry said:
Ah, much clearer (sorry, a bit slow today). Aren't guarantors supposed to be vaguely neutral in the conflict, which you could obviously hardly say of Iran.TheBigBean said:
They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.rjsterry said:
I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.TheBigBean said:
Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.rjsterry said:
Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?TheBigBean said:
All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.rjsterry said:
Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.TheBigBean said:
He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.rjsterry said:
I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.TheBigBean said:If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.
If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.
They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.
My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.
Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Different type of fundamentalists in Turkey.0
-
As I said before, you can negotiate with your mates, but it is not very effective.rjsterry said:
Greece and Turkey being somewhat more trustworthy, and not governed at the whim of religious fundamentalists.TheBigBean said:
The Cyprus treaty has three guarantors: Greece, Turkey and the UK. Only one of those is neutral. The main requirement is the capability to restore the terms of the agreement, so big player overseeing small squabble.rjsterry said:
Ah, much clearer (sorry, a bit slow today). Aren't guarantors supposed to be vaguely neutral in the conflict, which you could obviously hardly say of Iran.TheBigBean said:
They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.rjsterry said:
I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.TheBigBean said:
Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.rjsterry said:
Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?TheBigBean said:
All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.rjsterry said:
Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.TheBigBean said:
He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.rjsterry said:
I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.TheBigBean said:If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.
If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.
They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.
My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.
Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.0 -
It's all relative.rjsterry said:
Greece and Turkey being somewhat more trustworthy, and not governed at the whim of religious fundamentalists.TheBigBean said:
The Cyprus treaty has three guarantors: Greece, Turkey and the UK. Only one of those is neutral. The main requirement is the capability to restore the terms of the agreement, so big player overseeing small squabble.rjsterry said:
Ah, much clearer (sorry, a bit slow today). Aren't guarantors supposed to be vaguely neutral in the conflict, which you could obviously hardly say of Iran.TheBigBean said:
They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.rjsterry said:
I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.TheBigBean said:
Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.rjsterry said:
Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?TheBigBean said:
All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.rjsterry said:
Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.TheBigBean said:
He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.rjsterry said:
I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.TheBigBean said:If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.
If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.
They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.
My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.
Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.0 -
It's Tűrkiye.rjsterry said:
Greece and Turkey being somewhat more trustworthy, and not governed at the whim of religious fundamentalists.TheBigBean said:
The Cyprus treaty has three guarantors: Greece, Turkey and the UK. Only one of those is neutral. The main requirement is the capability to restore the terms of the agreement, so big player overseeing small squabble.rjsterry said:
Ah, much clearer (sorry, a bit slow today). Aren't guarantors supposed to be vaguely neutral in the conflict, which you could obviously hardly say of Iran.TheBigBean said:
They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.rjsterry said:
I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.TheBigBean said:
Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.rjsterry said:
Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?TheBigBean said:
All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.rjsterry said:
Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.TheBigBean said:
He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.rjsterry said:
I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.TheBigBean said:If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.
If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.
They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.
My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.
Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.0 -
And Ελλάς.First.Aspect said:
It's Tűrkiye.rjsterry said:
Greece and Turkey being somewhat more trustworthy, and not governed at the whim of religious fundamentalists.TheBigBean said:
The Cyprus treaty has three guarantors: Greece, Turkey and the UK. Only one of those is neutral. The main requirement is the capability to restore the terms of the agreement, so big player overseeing small squabble.rjsterry said:
Ah, much clearer (sorry, a bit slow today). Aren't guarantors supposed to be vaguely neutral in the conflict, which you could obviously hardly say of Iran.TheBigBean said:
They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.rjsterry said:
I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.TheBigBean said:
Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.rjsterry said:
Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?TheBigBean said:
All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.rjsterry said:
Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.TheBigBean said:
He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.rjsterry said:
I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.TheBigBean said:If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.
If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.
They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.
My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.
Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.
🤪1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
A summary of recent history in the ME.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/17/left-on-the-shelf-how-the-world-failed-miserably-in-the-middle-east0 -
Not that ignoring a problem is in any way a solution, but I can't help thinking it's as much the fault of the various crooked/ineffectual leaders that both sides have been cursed with.TheBigBean said:A summary of recent history in the ME.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/17/left-on-the-shelf-how-the-world-failed-miserably-in-the-middle-east1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I thought this quote was good. The article also explains well a lot of the provocation and duplicity over the years.rjsterry said:
Not that ignoring a problem is in any way a solution, but I can't help thinking it's as much the fault of the various crooked/ineffectual leaders that both sides have been cursed with.TheBigBean said:A summary of recent history in the ME.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/17/left-on-the-shelf-how-the-world-failed-miserably-in-the-middle-eastIn his autobiography, Kerry warned, “in foreign policy, whilst it is very easy to speculate about the risks of acting there is rarely enough focus on the risks of inaction. That is especially true about peace in the Middle East.”
But in the end, he concluded: “The mistrust and the narratives of victimisation ran so deep on both sides that neither would compromise.”0 -
Sure, but I don't think legitimising Iran's claim over Palestine as some sort of satellite is a good idea for long term stability, especially given their own internal instability. There are other better options.TheBigBean said:
As I said before, you can negotiate with your mates, but it is not very effective.rjsterry said:
Greece and Turkey being somewhat more trustworthy, and not governed at the whim of religious fundamentalists.TheBigBean said:
The Cyprus treaty has three guarantors: Greece, Turkey and the UK. Only one of those is neutral. The main requirement is the capability to restore the terms of the agreement, so big player overseeing small squabble.rjsterry said:
Ah, much clearer (sorry, a bit slow today). Aren't guarantors supposed to be vaguely neutral in the conflict, which you could obviously hardly say of Iran.TheBigBean said:
They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.rjsterry said:
I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.TheBigBean said:
Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.rjsterry said:
Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?TheBigBean said:
All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.rjsterry said:
Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.TheBigBean said:
He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.rjsterry said:
I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.TheBigBean said:If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.
If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.
They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.
My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.
Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don’t really know what Israel’s end game is here.
Occupation has proved a failure. No one seems to think they can eradicate hamas. So what happens once the fighting is over?0 -
Are they seeing it just as an intelligence failure, with a return to the status quo being the intention?rick_chasey said:I don’t really know what Israel’s end game is here.
Occupation has proved a failure. No one seems to think they can eradicate hamas. So what happens once the fighting is over?0 -
Huge amount of support for Israel will evaporate if they really have bombed the Palestinian hospital.0
-
My fear since the beginning is that revenge would trump defence.Dorset_Boy said:Huge amount of support for Israel will evaporate if they really have bombed the Palestinian hospital.
This could be the crossover point.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
There isn't one. It's just a need to do something partly as a very understandable reaction to a horrific attack and partly to cover Bibi's arse for having let this happen.rick_chasey said:I don’t really know what Israel’s end game is here.
Occupation has proved a failure. No one seems to think they can eradicate hamas. So what happens once the fighting is over?
I can't help thinking the purpose of the original attack was to lure the IDF into years of being picked off a few at a time. I hope the generals have more sense than their political masters.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Dorset_Boy said:
Huge amount of support for Israel will evaporate if they really have bombed the Palestinian hospital.
I suspect that Hamas knew that Israel was likely to respond disproportionally and cross over into revenge, and that will be the best recruiting aid for Hamas.0 -
Dorset_Boy said:
Huge amount of support for Israel will evaporate if they really have bombed the Palestinian hospital.
Lots of disinformation likely. Here's one take...
0 -
0
-
Both must be true, I saw them on the internet.
Flippant to mask my real concern about all news videos.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
Both must be true, I saw them on the internet.
Flippant to mask my real concern about all news videos.
It's not really worth speculating when both sides are jumping to conclusions, and you don't even know what you're really looking at in videos.0 -
Not sure Hamas has weapons that powerful.briantrumpet said:Dorset_Boy said:Huge amount of support for Israel will evaporate if they really have bombed the Palestinian hospital.
Lots of disinformation likely. Here's one take...0 -
Palestinians crossing the border to Egypt is likely an aim.rick_chasey said:I don’t really know what Israel’s end game is here.
Occupation has proved a failure. No one seems to think they can eradicate hamas. So what happens once the fighting is over?0 -
They didn't need help recruiting. They needed help bringing the issue back to the forefront of world politics. They wanted to stop Israel normalising relations with other countries such as Saudia Arabia.briantrumpet said:Dorset_Boy said:Huge amount of support for Israel will evaporate if they really have bombed the Palestinian hospital.
I suspect that Hamas knew that Israel was likely to respond disproportionally and cross over into revenge, and that will be the best recruiting aid for Hamas.
0 -
It doesn’t sound like Egypt wants to play ball for thatTheBigBean said:
Palestinians crossing the border to Egypt is likely an aim.rick_chasey said:I don’t really know what Israel’s end game is here.
Occupation has proved a failure. No one seems to think they can eradicate hamas. So what happens once the fighting is over?0 -
Well having been to Sanai by road from Cairo, I can understand that, tbh. It's a long way from the capital and thet already seem to spend a lot policing it. I believe even Egyprians need a permit to cross it.rick_chasey said:
It doesn’t sound like Egypt wants to play ball for thatTheBigBean said:
Palestinians crossing the border to Egypt is likely an aim.rick_chasey said:I don’t really know what Israel’s end game is here.
Occupation has proved a failure. No one seems to think they can eradicate hamas. So what happens once the fighting is over?
Plus there's just not much there, away from the tourist spots.0 -
He says church officials understand that around 6,000 displaced people were sheltering in the hospital courtyard by the end of last week. The hospital says it was first hit by an Israeli airstrike on Saturday.
That strike injured four people, after which around 5,000 people left the courtyard - leaving around 1,000 remaining there.0 -
Starting to look more likely that the Israeli side was using false evidence that it was a misfiring Hamas rocket.
0 -
It's still as clear as mud who fired the rocket. All you can work out so far is who is believing which side's spin.2
-
If they get sucked into a long war it'll be fairly ruinous. We've seen with Britain's wars, without an end game for these kinds of wars they are pointless. The leaders go into hiding and just wage war until it ends and they just come back and do exactly the same as before, only loads of people are dead and the place is massively poorer.rjsterry said:
There isn't one. It's just a need to do something partly as a very understandable reaction to a horrific attack and partly to cover Bibi's censored for having let this happen.rick_chasey said:I don’t really know what Israel’s end game is here.
Occupation has proved a failure. No one seems to think they can eradicate hamas. So what happens once the fighting is over?
I can't help thinking the purpose of the original attack was to lure the IDF into years of being picked off a few at a time. I hope the generals have more sense than their political masters.0
