El Segundo

From clinical finishing in the last few games to not being able to hit a cow's arse with a banjo in this. Woeful finishing.

Our away form is too often nowhere near our home form. Seem to have developed a habit of starting slowly and conceding early. Zaniolo is starting to grate a bit. He didn't track the fullback for the goal either so partly his fault.

Why are you shouting again? As I said I am fully aware some ill-informed people will say my stance is anti-Semitic and/or anti-Zionist and that's why a lot of people who agree with me are afraid to express such views. I've already explained they are neither, so what is your issue ? Why would anyone be able to call it evil? I believe the Palestinians have the right to fight occupation but not by any means necessary such as committing war crimes. I can't possibly say whether the October 7th attack was motivated by fighting the occupation or pushed by Iran or whoever to stir up trouble. I don't have that knowledge. You will have to ask Hamas what their motivation was. I've never called Hamas freedom fighters. Some of the oppressed might very well see them as such but I don't. Hamas are too extreme in their methods to be called such. I don't think the October 7th attacks on civilians were justified or proportionate, illegal occupation or not. Fighting the occupation should not include targeting civilians.

Yes Israel removed settlements from Gaza in 2005 but continued to expand settlements in the West Bank/East Jerusalem, as well as the Golan Heights. So I wouldn't see that as a change of policy overall. So Palestinians were supposed to build their country even though you yourself have stated there was no country before Israel. Even though most of the land they occupied was seized or handed over to the Israelis. Even though they were holed up in open prisons. Even though their attempts with their allies to take back their lands and build their country led to military defeats and further Israeli expansions. To assign blame to Palestinians for not “building their country” in those conditions looks very much like victim blaming to me. No I don't think you did. The above answers your second two questions. To answer your other question, no I don't believe Israel has the right to exist in those lands because the bulk of that land was unfairly/illegally taken from the indigenous population, who were then forcibly displaced. No country or people should have the right to occupy someone else's land and claim it as their own. Many who express such views with regard to Israel are dismissed anti-Zionist, or anti-Semitic. They are neither. I've nothing against the Jewish people, I've nothing against some of them wanting a Jewish homeland. I just don't think they had any legal or moral claim or right to the land they took or were "awarded", and I think the way they have gone ahead anyway is abhorrent.

Yes that would be nice if the IDF could clear out the nutters and give the land back to its original owners, but wouldn't it need a change of policy over the settlements and expansion by Israel first? How likely is that to happen? And haven't the IDF been complicit in the land grabs and expulsions in occupied territories themselves? I'm not trying to paint a picture that Palestinians want a peaceful solution at all. You said they should find an alternative to violent means, I've raised that approach as one of very few alternatives and asked you how realistic you think it is for them. So if violence is not an option, and they, in your view at least, do not want a peaceful solution, what alternatives do you suggest? How have they sabotaged peace negotiation and solutions ? Is it by refusing to sign up to agreements that sanction and condone the Israeli occupation? The creation of Mandatory Palestine in 1919 and the the declaration of Israel in 1948 absolutely did prevent the Palestinians from building a country in which they could self govern the territories they lived in as of 1919-1920. Do you have evidence that counters the recorded facts that the British refused the people of Palestine self governance until 1948? And evidence that counters the recorded fact that the UN relieved them of 56% of the territory in 1948? If not, what do you base your hard no on? What are/were these "Palestinian responsiblities" you refer to in this context? Was it to defy the occupying forces and create their own country regardless? If so, isn't that exactly what they've been trying to do?

Ok fair points but how would you propose the West Bank Radicals should be "forcefully kicked out" if violence is not an acceptable method? And by whom? I guess you would suggest discourse and diplomacy - but what confidence should the Palestinians put in attempting a solution through discourse and diplomacy when the great powers, including the UN have demonstrated a massive degree of untrustworthiness towards them? What percentage chance would you give the Palestinians of getting a fair hearing and outcome? What percentage chance would you give of Israel complying with any outcome that reverted land back to Palestinians? There may not have been a Palestinian State per se, but other parts of the Arab World "liberated" from the Ottoman occupation were granted the right to self governance in line with the League of Nations charter. I'm sure the existing population would have been more than happy to "build a country" if they had been allowed to. I can't speak for the Palestinian people re Hamas. I have no idea how many of them would support Hamas or any other violent opposition to what they see as occupation. I suspect that a significant number of them may do, given they have been treated worse than shit for so long now that it must have given rise to a massive degree of anger and resentment, which has to find an outlet at some point. I also suspect a fair number of them don't simply because they know that anything Hamas do will be returned with massive and indiscriminate interest by Israel.

Just interested in whether or not you think Israel is an occupying force? As a general principle, do you think that any people that has it's land occupied has a right to oppose that occupation (not by Hamas, but in general) ?

I haven't said the Jews shouldn't be allowed a state. In any case would such a viewpoint be a fallacy? I mean in the sense of logical fallacy? Around 1920 is when the Zionist movement's desire for a Jewish homeland, which had been mooted for quite a few decades before that, began to be ratified as part of Western (initially British) Foreign Policy. That made it more viable, accommodated significant immigration of Jews to Palestine, and ultimately led to the foundation of the Israeli state in 1948 when the British did a runner after realising what an unholy cock up they'd made of the whole shebang. So to me it seems a not unreasonable point from which to start the discussion of the plight of the Palestinians under Jewish occupation. I'm not sure how the other points you make are relevant to the current situation. If they are attempts to expose hypocrisy, I don't think they work. If they are attempts to justify what Israel has done and is doing because others are just as bad then they are just "whataboutery".

The bulk of immigration to the Antipodes occurred from around the 1830s to the 1850s, in prime Colonial times. A totally different ball game as I implied in my earlier post. Of course Israel was preceded by Mandatory Palestine, ruled by the British, but Israel as a Jewish state came into being 14th May 1948. It's within living memory and happened in a World where Colonialism had supposedly become, or was becoming, discredited and repugnant. It is true, however, that both Zionist activity and immigration, and Arab hostility around Palestine had been steadily growing in the inter-war period. The promise to Zionists within the British mandate was for a "National Homeland for the Jews", not a Jewish state. Even that "lesser" promise contradicted guarantees made by the British Government to the Arab World that they would be granted the right to self determination of the indigenous peoples in return for helping to fight the Ottoman Empire in WWI. Although the British later tried to wriggle out of it, those guarantees did not exclude Palestine. In 1919 the vast majority of the population in Palestine were non-Jewish, mostly Arabs. So the mandate not only **** over the Arabs, it was claimed that it contravened Article 22 of the League of Nations pertaining to the equal rights for self-determination of all people. Records show that at the time Israel was created, Jews were still not a majority in Palestine, they numbered around a third of the population, and owned around only 5-6% of the land. And that was following significant encouraged immigration of Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. So 1948 really is a key date in all this and was a crucial turning point - when the UN somehow sanctioned giving the Zionists 55% of the land, in contravention of its own Charter regarding equal rights to self determination, and the declaration of a Jewish state. I do think that Israel has become established enough to render a two state "solution" the only "viable" option. I don't agree that that means the Arabs should accept Israel in it's current (and expanding) state. I still don't buy your reasoning that because multiple generations of Jews have been born in Palestine since 1948 that it endows them with rights of Governance and land ownership. Much of which has been seized by force from indigenous Palestinians. I can only see the Arab world accepting a two state solution if Palestinians are given a fair share of the land , security from attack, and equal rights to self governance. Sadly I can't ever see the Zionists agreeing to that.

UN Mandate or not, if it walks like a duck....

I'm not giving "credit" to anyone. I get that you are trying to highlight the hypocrisy of criticising Israel and not criticising other countries for what you believe to be similar transgressions. For me the situations are so different that your comparisons have little or no valid basis as evidence of hypocrisy.

I specified "in modern times". The examples you give are from times when Colonialism was the norm and every large economic and military power considered it their right. In post-Colonial times, are they not retrospectively regarded as massive wrongs perpetrated against native peoples? And are the neighbours blamed for being "just as bad" as the invaders? Such travesties were played out to more or less completion and are now so embedded that I doubt anyone would suggest reversal is possible. In this case 1947 is within living memory, and the continuing process of cleansing and expansion has been playing out before our eyes for 75 years and with the complicit agreement and backing of the Western Powers. This in an era that was becoming post-Colonial, and where the UN is, among other things, meant to prevent repetitions of such wrongs. Instead they instigated one. I don't accept that Israel/Palestine has reached the point of no return that the other examples you mention have, because it is an ongoing and evolving process. Isn't Israel's drive to get to that point of no return what the conflict is all about? Sure Jews were always present in the area, but from what I can see they were a tiny minority for the last 2000 or so years. Those Jews do not appear to have ever had Zionism as their aim and I'm not convinced their minority presence endowed the Zionists with any rights to become the forced majority in Palestine. Democratic processes and attempts at peace agreements have not helped the Palestinians much in the last 75 years. Such moves tend to revolve around an acceptance that Israel has done what it's done and the other parties just need to accept it and move on, with little or no benefit or reparations to the Palestinian population. which seems to be pretty much what you are proposing. Is it any wonder they, including Hamas, aren't willing to accept such terms? Would you?

My reference to the 1948 two state "solution" was in response to the other poster bringing up the subject of its rejection as a criticism of Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan, as well as other Arab nations. To my mind they most likely saw it as a deeply unjust and unfair proposal that strongly favoured the Jewish minority and considered the Palestinian people as disposable and dispensable. I find it hard to disagree. I'm not sure you can label injustices that have been ongoing for at least 75 years and continue now as "historical". The events of 1947-48 may have been something of a starting point (although not completely) but it has been a more or less continuous process of enlargement, oppression and displacement ever since. And context is crucial to understanding any situation. Why would you want to suppress it or ignore it? The UN resolution of 1947 remains a root cause of what's going on today and is therefore still extremely relevant. Can you just say "oh it happened so long ago it's not relevant"? That could lead to a whole can of worms as to what can be dismissed as "historical". You seriously don't think Israel is a unique case? I'm not singling them out because they are a Jewish state (although that in itself makes them unique) but because, while other countries may have been shaped and influenced by the Colonialism of Britain and France in particular, and other countries persecute minorities, can you name any other examples in modern times where a minority ethno/religious population were artificially supplanted into the midst of a majority, supplemented and supported by the established Colonial Powers, and then proceeded to act like a colonial power themselves? Taking over and expanding with extreme prejudice? Finally I'm not convinced that being born there as the child of a member of an occupying colonial power endows you with any rights to that land. On what basis would those rights exist? And do those rights extend to continuing to expel Palestinians , take their land, and put them in open prisons?

They are still not there by choice but from 75 years of continuous Israeli expansion and persecution. You seem to be saying that their “brothers” should have taken them in as Citizens to solve the problem after Israel had forced them out, and if they don’t, they are just as bad as Israel. How convenient for the Israelis - “yeah sure we can just kick them out and take their land cos Egypt/Lebanon/Jordan will just take them in, and if they refuse then they are just as bad as us”. What motivation would Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have for doing that? What obligation is there for them to do so? The entire Arab world rejected the 1948 so called two state solution and why wouldn’t they? The “UN” decided to hand over something like 55% of the land to Israelis who at the time occupied something like 6% of the land and constituted around only a third of the population even after mass immigration following World War 2. It didn’t sound like much of a “solution” for the Palestinians who would have to hand over their land to the Israelis, nor did it sound like much of a solution to those countries that decided to oppose it. What would you have done in their shoes?

From what I've read the a significant number (perhaps the majority) of Palestinian refugees in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon are people who fled (or were expelled) from Palestine in it's various forms, and Palestine was their homeland. The original refugees being those fleeing what was defined by the British as Mandatory Palestine during the 1947-48 war, followed by those escaping further conflicts. It seems a significant number of them hoped to move back, but were not allowed to. Thus their descendants may have been born in those countries, but, it seems, not by choice. Is it those people you are referring to as being part of Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan and having those countries as their homelands? If not which people are you referring to?

Doesn't really answer my questions. Generational or not they are still refugees in another country, not partitioned off in their own country. Plus full acceptance could still be seen as acceptance that the Israelis are justified in what they are doing, and an admission that those Palestinians have no chance of ever returning to their homeland. You don't think that makes a difference?

Ok, but they are refugees in a foreign country there, not nationals in their own country. Is it possible Egypt and other Arab countries don't want to fully accept them because that would be tantamount to accepting what Israel had done to force them out of their own country?

So you're saying the neighbouring Arab countries are as guilty of apartheid policies as the Israelis are when it comes to Palestinians? What is that based on - because because they don't want to take them in and prefer them to stay in Gaza?

Just a few years ago, especially under Bruce, people would talk about the likes of City and Liverpool playing an altogether different sport or being on another planet. We're now on that planet and playing the same sport. The players did what they had to do then basically rested a bit, which can be frustrating, and maybe missed an opportunity to improve goal difference, but made sense given our fixtures and injury list. The front three of Bailey Diaby and Watkins in the second half looked a bit tasty, especially now that Bailey seems to have found some confidence and been encouraged to use his trickery a bit more. Atmosphere seemed fine to me, but as OutByEaster said, the football is now more cerebral and less up and at 'em - City have played like that for years, and it can be a bit boring for some. May explain why people say the Etihad atmosphere is poor.

You'll see in my subsequent post I acknowledge he's obviously got ability and potential, but that doesn't alter the fact that his performances so far have still been mostly poor. But he is improving. To me it's more like Bailey's early games (after his initial brilliant debut cameo) where you could see glimpses of ability but he couldn't seem to make it happen. He still can't away from home but he's been very effective in home games. The one I would compare to early Doug is Kamara who, last season at least was making the same mistakes Luiz kept making in his early days - getting caught on the ball then often giving a foul away trying to win it back. I think Kamara has improved this season and has the potential to be on a par with Doug.

Well I suppose Buendia did also look underwhelming when he first joined, and I think it's obvious Zaniolo has ability and potential and is probably not up to speed with the PL just yet. I'd also make a case for Diaby not being fully up to speed yet, and if one or both have another gear or two in hand then we could see some very good things..

I find it odd that people think Zanioloi's better than Buendia unless it's based on seeing him before he came to Villa. For me Zaniolo has somewhere between been awful and mediocre up until Saturday, when admittedly he did have a decent game. His stats for the season would seem to back that view up. Apparently Zero goal contributions despite playing in most matches, and as for being a target for high balls, only won three aerial duals all season. Just from what I've seen he's lost the ball frequently, lost most of his duels, held on to the ball too long, made poor decisions and had very little influence on games. Compare his performance to Ramsey's when the latter replaced him against Brighton - the difference was immediate and stark. Buendia is frustrating but positively influences every game he plays in.

From what I recall in the pre-season game against Newcastle in the US, Emi was unplayable first half and had them all over the place. Looked like he was really up for it this season. My brother and I have always called him the nearly man, because he sees and tries things others don't and then nearly plays a great ball but not quite - often slightly underhitting or overhitting passes. But against Newcastle he seemed to be getting it right. I think we do miss him, even though we are doing well without him. For example against Palace for most of the game, Everton in the Carabao, and Mostar we were crying out for a number 10 type like him or Coutinho to get between the lines and unlock them.

Duran is nowhere near as effective as Watkins. The difference when Watkins replaced Duran at half time against Mostar was huge. There was little or no movement and dynamism up front first half. Watkins and Luiz coming on changed everything. Duran might get the odd goal but the drop off in overall quality and team effectiveness if Watkins gets injured or suspended would be huge.

Absolutely - dally on the ball, think about going down the flank turn and pass it inside or back or both. Almost every time, utterly predictable. It's like he's had the flair programmed out of him.