I would agree with this. At least on Russia, he has some degree of lived experience on the subject matter.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
I would agree with this. At least on Russia, he has some degree of lived experience on the subject matter.
Why would anyone take a chess player as gospel in international matters? Who gives a flying one about what Kasparov thinks? It's his opinion and he's certainly allowed to have one, but what makes him an authority about any international matter or someone we should refer to?
What's next? Should we seek after Michael Owen's wisdom?
he’s not legitimising it - he’s pointing out the uncomfortable reality of the situation.
He's been a political activist for years alongside his chess career, so at least in terms of Russia, he has the experience of having led pro-democracy protests in Moscow and having been arrested by Putin as a point of reference to be able to speak about what's happening there (which is 90% of where his punditry is applied on US TV). His knowledge of Israel-Palestine is average at best.
And also legitimising ethnic cleansing.
On top of that he wrote a book (Winter is Coming) which sadly predicted a few years before exactly what Putin did and is doing.
can he be wrong on issues? Absolutely. But he is worth listening to.
@That_Bloke Please PM any good books written by Michael Owen.
You forgot the best part - he believed that the middle ages did not exist, we live in the year AD ~1000, that Jesus was a Byzantine emperor, carbon dating is wrong, and the that a Muscovite empire (which includes all the ethnicities around Russia, like Ukraine and the Mongols as well as around Rome, like the Goths and Huns) dominated history before the modern era.
He has walked back some of this, but it is a good indication of the mindset that produces his political thoughts.
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/newchronology.html
He’s not even a very good expert on Russia, let alone world politics.
So he is legitimising it. Not only legitimising it, he is also wrong on Palestanians refusing peace and two states solution.
Not in the next 3-4 years. But give it time. It is just the first step of normalization on the talks of claiming Gaza
It is funny to put "New Chronology, nuke Iraq" Kasparov next to "eternal Russia, Ukraine is fake" Karpov...so similar and so different all these years later. And of course there is open Nazi Bobby Fischer, still uniquely his own man!
I mean, this is just copying from wiki - whatever the Palestinian civilians think, those at a political level with any power have rejected peace.
‘The stated goal of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is to conquer Israel and replace it with an Islamist state.[23] Both groups reject the Oslo Accords and other plans for peace with Israel. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the two groups worked together to derail the peace process by attacking Israeli civilians’
Why the feck are western politicians (example Lammy) still talking about a 2 state solution when Israeli politicians have made it perfectly clear that 2 states will never happen under their watch?
When were there a two state presented for the Palestinians that they rejected, the closest the indigenous people of the land were offered was a sub state.
In 1947, the arab leaders did not reject a two state, they simply did not accept giving the Palestinians only 45% of the land when they formed 65% of the population. After the 1967 war, the 242 resolution was clear with the formula of land for peace. The PLO accepted the 2 sates solution already in the 70's. But everything was thrown at them was not good enough in terms of conditions how the "state" was going to operate.
Rabin never wanted to give them a state. Rabin only wanted to grant the Palestinians limited autonomy, a goal he achieved through the Oslo Accords. That was Rabin’s plan. He saw the Oslo Accords as a permanent arrangement, not an interim agreement, which he expressed through his adamant opposition to Palestinian statehood. In our era, in which sovereign statehood ensures full civil rights, it should have been absolutely clear that the Palestinian people would have rejected and resisted an interim agreement and demanded the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.
I cannot say that it will never happen. But not in the next 3-4 years either. While there are some factions who daydream of this, it's very far away from any sort of normalization.
Agree. Because timing matters. But I could see that happening before the decade ends. First thing is putting on the conversations. And that is what are they doing with this farfetched pipedream in this context. For now
I can't say it will definitely not happen, looking at some of the people who are part of the govenment now. A few years ago, their inclusion would be have been considered laughable. A few decades ago, the existance of one of them out of 120 members of the parliament was considered sacrilege.
That's one video you know you'll regret watching and boy, do I regret it. My heart got absolutely ripped apart. Her name means, ironically, "The World".
Screw anyone defending this shit. No amount of mental gymnastics will ever justify it.
Last edited:
At what point can Israel and American authorities be held accountable for war crimes?
I’m pretty sure it’ll be the twelfth of Never.
Depends on the course of history. If the Palestinians do eventually get their justice and their own state, the US will be remembered as a force on the wrong side of history actively working against it and essentially be a quasi-genocidal, apartheid enabler. Of course you'll get politicians backtracking and claiming they always supported justice for the Palestinians and comically backtrack, just like veteran conservative politicians do today regarding Mandela and the ANC. If the Israelis succeed in ethnically cleansing and completely homogenising the land, it'll be a footnote in the history books under the whole 'oh this was unfortunate, we should learn from this, never again', and then be swiftly forgotten.
They do the same with MLK. Apparently everyone supported him back then, despite polls showing that white Americans largely hated him. They've also perversely tried to use him as an attack on any kind of disruptive protest, claiming that Dr. King would have never done X or Y.
The concept of war crimes generally doesn't apply to large states or their close allies, since they can simply ignore all charges and no one can do anything about it.
The concept applies, they're just criminals that get away with it.
It doesn't, otherwise it would've been implemented. The very concept of international law can't be applied to powerful nation states, which makes it useless and irrelevant as a meaningful legal device.
The concept does very much apply, the practice of punishing it doesn't seem to. The US and Israel can by every interpretation of the terminology be rightfully accused of carrying out or abetting war crimes, but will likely not be punished for it.
You can't apply the law, but you can clearly say that israel is a criminal state, much like the US and all major powers. Therefore the concept applies.
Except it wouldn’t have any meaning, particularly when the US and most of the western world are publicly backing Israel.
You can have condemnations and such; they just wouldn’t go anywhere because the countries that matter wouldn’t be collectively behind it.
That makes no sense. There is no democracy in cuba but cuban people still have the concept of what democracy is. Concepts exist regardless of material conditions.
Israel and the US commit war crimes, you can argue that might makes right, but you can't erase that concept.
Even in your example, knowing what Democracy is would have no tangible impact on making Cuba Democratic, which would make it a shallow, legally flaccid exercise. In the case of Israel, if the US, EU, and NATO don’t collectively agree on terminology then it would have no meaning and not hold Israel “accountable” before a body that is powerless to affect outcomes.
But it would have an impact on how cubans look at their government, like the way the US behaves has an impact on how it's seen in many places in the world. Concepts, legality and accountability are different things. Just because a bully can't be beaten by other kids in the school yard and the teachers don't give a feck, it doesn't mean the concept of bullying doesn't exist.
Would eliminating this person have a deleterious effect on Hamas or are they a more independent cell-oriented force?
We can agree to disagree here. The reason protests and UN efforts have failed to change anything on the ground is because the only political actors capable of influencing the war are the US, Israel, and a few regional states like Qatar, Egypt, and possibly the Saudis (but only if they're working together instead of independently). Take the hostage swaps of a few weeks ago - it was largely a US, Qatar, Israel-Hamas, Egypt affair . The rest of the world are powerless to affect the situation because Israel and Hamas are only willing to deal with these nations.
Last edited:
Doesn’t matter if you’re Jewish… don’t dare say or do anything anti-Zionist or else.
Also doesn’t matter if you’re a kid… believe and do what you’re told, or else. Power trip much?
Rings a bell in the back of my head… sure I’ve seen something like this before?
https://x.com/sza_now/status/1736819301259030765?s=61&t=ZvGzfV2Qafn11jKrPfufuA
Also doesn’t matter if you’re a kid… believe and do what you’re told, or else. Power trip much?
Rings a bell in the back of my head… sure I’ve seen something like this before?
https://x.com/sza_now/status/1736819301259030765?s=61&t=ZvGzfV2Qafn11jKrPfufuA
7 days for 40 hostages