The only solution to the Israel/Palestine issue is to… make more Israel.
The strategic argument is that with Palestine as a state, Israel is too narrow.
This means that the security pragmatists in Israel align with the religious idiots.
Instead, fill in large chunks of the Mediterranean. Make more land. This will cost a few hundred billion, but will detach the pragmatists and then you have a peace - the Palestinians have their land and the Israelis have their land.
Not really feasible. The continental shelf is very narrow off Israel. It plunges very deep only a few miles off the coast, and there is no really shallow water at all.
That statement by the Scottish First Minister is incredible
No it's not. Why not visit Gaza instead of the Maldives and then you might have something worth listening to.
I have actually been to the West Bank. I’ve seen how Israel treats Palestinians. I believe Israel is now perilously close to being an apartheid state, brutalised by its own cruelties
Nonetheless I can see cold blooded terrorism - rape and murder - when it happens in front of me. And today as a politician that is what you must condemn, no?
Even Sadiq Khan managed it (Corbyn didn’t)
“The news coming out of Israel is deeply distressing.
I condemn the terrorist acts of Hamas and my thoughts are with those affected and those who have lost loved ones.”
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
This exchange is a perfect example of why, very sadly, when this conflict is the subject of pb I find the comments simply unreadable. You two aren’t talking to each other. At all. You might as well boil your own heads in a vat of oil for all the good it will do.
Firstly, fuck off.
Secondly, if you haven't fucked off yet, I'm responding directly and, I have to say, rather obviously to anyone with a brain cell, to this: "The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII."
The clue is in my exactly duplicating of the language: "Nobody deserves to be deported for things that..."
Thirdly, fuck off.
But when two tribes go to war repeatedly and one refuses another's right to exist then eventually enough is enough. That point was reached in WWII. The Red Army deserves a lot of criticism for most of what it did, including the ethnic cleansing in Crimea for instance deporting the Tatars, but for deporting the Germans who had elected the Nazis and repeatedly sort to exterminate people?
Hamas refuses to recognise Israel's very right to exist, and the Palestinians in Gaza are supporting Hamas. Eventually removing from Israel's land, which includes Gaza, those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist may be a last resort.
Hopefully it can be avoided and another way to defeat Hamas and enforce a peace can be found. But history hasn't been kind with that yet.
Ok, let me put it this way. One of the strongest pillars of feudalism was the dangerous-world-self-defence pillar. It was the way that feudal lords sought the buy-in from the peasantry. That's the way service, including military service, to feudal lord was justified. That, plus religious justifications.
Feeding the view that Israel is a threat to civilians in the minds of ordinary innocent Palestinians would be a mistake, because it drives them closer to the likes of Hamas, who are the feudal lords in this analogy. Now, you've talked on this thread about Israeli restraint and you have a good point there. I won't dwell today on the flip side of that, the low-level violence that Israel has meted out. That's for another day. Suffice to say that Israel has conducted itself well in some ways and poorly in others. If Israel were to turn full ethnic-cleansy as a result of this, that will strengthen the ties between Hamas and the people. It will vindicate, in the eyes of some, Hamas's argument, which is not something you or I want to see.
If you want to free people from the bonds of fealty to Hamas, you don't do it by deliberately targeting civilians. You only deliberately target civilians if you are trying to wipe out a country or a way of life. That is what Hamas are doing. Israel mustn't become more like Hamas, Hamas should become more like Israel.
Israel has bent over backwards to be kind to Palestinians. They have shown a generosity neither Egypt not Transjordan showed.
What thanks has it ever got them?
If they expel the "Palestinians" from Israel so that they can no longer attack from Gaza then what happens next?
Palestine doesn't exist. It has not for seventy years. If it can't co exist with Israel then saying goodbye and moving them on elsewhere may be the only solution that works.
I think a lot of people would quarrel with your first sentence.
So now short of wholesale removal of a people which is morally and practically problematic one potential solution is for Gaza to come under perhaps a UN-type administration. Bringing it under control of a government that would not be dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour.
Or on it will go.
Or place the whole area, including Israel, under some sort of “UN Mandate”. Find a country to manage it and away you go.
The only solution to the Israel/Palestine issue is to… make more Israel.
The strategic argument is that with Palestine as a state, Israel is too narrow.
This means that the security pragmatists in Israel align with the religious idiots.
Instead, fill in large chunks of the Mediterranean. Make more land. This will cost a few hundred billion, but will detach the pragmatists and then you have a peace - the Palestinians have their land and the Israelis have their land.
Not really feasible. The continental shelf is very narrow off Israel. It plunges very deep only a few miles off the coast, and there is no really shallow water at all.
I think there is enough before you go below 250m.
250m is incredibly deep for land reclamation. We’d usually be talking sea no deeper than 10-20m max.
So now short of wholesale removal of a people which is morally and practically problematic one potential solution is for Gaza to come under perhaps a UN-type administration. Bringing it under control of a government that would not be dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour.
Or on it will go.
Or place the whole area, including Israel, under some sort of “UN Mandate”. Find a country to manage it and away you go.
The counter factual is that when Sharon handed over Gaza the Palestinians had ceased military action against Israel and dedicated themselves to become, say oh I don't know, Singapore on Jordan.
Think of the UN/US/World Bank billions that would have been poured in.
But no - they wanted to push Israel into the sea. Perhaps giving them Gaza was seen as a victory for violence. As Abba Eban noted and how true it seems to be, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Nice story Mike of a different time. If any of my kids had wanted to go to Gaza as students I think I would have had heart failure. Of course, they didn't. Several parts of the world are now just too dangerous, even for adventurous types. The available world is getting smaller.
Though bigger too. Places like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were off limits once, as were Algeria, Colombia, even China when I was young. All on the tourist trail now.
I missed out on Kashmir in 1990 when the troubles blew up, and wished that I had got there a year earlier.
What Hamas are up to is barbaric, but the history of mutual atrocity in Israel and Palestine has shown that no atrocity is too brutal. No doubt the Israeli revenge will be taken on women and civilians too.
Once again.
Equivalent between brutal terrorists torturing women and a trained professional army.
There are very likely to be civilian casualties as a result of any Israeli action. That will be unfortunate and we can argue that Israel should do their best to minimise them. I am sure they will, within the constraints of their military calculus (which is different to ours)
But this is not “revenge”. It is not “torture”. It is not an “atrocity”.
Your false equivalence is the failing of the West. It enables the evil that is Hamas.
What a shambles . England are so lucky that they were in an easy group . Next time the seedings should be done closer to the event given the lop sided draw .
We're responsible for messing up the region in 1948.
Not really, before the British Mandate over Palestine ended in 1948 of course the King David Hotel had been bombed by Zionist terrorists in 1946. Once it ended Israel declared independence straight after and Arab states then invaded.
Arab states at the time and many Arabs still now never really accepted the creation of a state of Israel alongside a Palestinian Arab state as the UN had suggested and Israel now wants to expand beyond the original boundaries it had in 1948. A compromise was and is very hard to achieve
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
It’s a neat idea
Unfortunately the Arabs are unwilling to assist their brethren (that’s why you still have refugee camps in Jordan - they can’t even work).
Turns out that dictatorships don’t like the idea of large number of radical militants settling in their territory
The counter factual is that when Sharon handed over Gaza the Palestinians had ceased military action against Israel and dedicated themselves to become, say oh I don't know, Singapore on Jordan.
Think of the UN/US/World Bank billions that would have been poured in.
But no - they wanted to push Israel into the sea. Perhaps giving them Gaza was seen as a victory for violence. As Abba Eban noted and how true it seems to be, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
They can't become Singapore on Jordan, because Israel (understandably) doesn't allow Gaza to have an airport, and for the last 18 years has blockaded the small port of Gaza.
McTominey saves his manager’s job in 3 minutes and added time. Being interviewed, he says “At this club you never give up, I have been here since I was 5 years old and I know it better than anyone.”
Which raises the question of why Ten Hag spent most of the transfer window trying to off load him. Players who feel like that and care like that ARE your team. I really hope he sees that.
McTominey saves his manager’s job in 3 minutes and added time. Being interviewed, he says “At this club you never give up, I have been here since I was 5 years old and I know it better than anyone.”
Which raises the question of why Ten Hag spent most of the transfer window trying to off load him. Players who feel like that and care like that ARE your team. I really hope he sees that.
Theories on X that Hamas has embedded people in the militant platoons to take these videos and post them online, precisely so as to enrage Israelis and provoke the most brutal response
It may be true. But if it is true, what's the middlegame for Hamas, after Israel goes predictably mad?
Hamas has played a blinder. Netanyahu's reputation as pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-democratic maniac has been glaringly exposed to the world in recent times. Israel won't get a shred of sympathy. In terms of propaganda, Hamas holds all the cards here.
Militarily, they’ve scored a success in the short run. Beyond that, they’ll reap the whirlwind.
In terms of propaganda, they’ll get lots of backing from countries that are useless to them, while Israel will get lots of backing from the countries that matter.
More interesting is: what does Iran want? I am certain Iran is behind this. Hamas have been assisted, massively, by a major player, and that must be Iran
What is the "this" and what led up to it? (See among other things the provocation last week at Al Aqsa.)
The reports that Hamas attacked "by land, sea, and air" seem quite questionable given the blockade and the tight patrolling of the coastline in which even fishing vessels can be shot at if they go further than a certain distance out.
Al Jazeera is quoting Israeli media and military sources a lot. Iranian news agency IRNA's website is down. The Hamas website is down. Wafa.ps and PNN.ps are up but bitty. Their angle is mostly "sticky" in Irish republican terminology.
Edit: re. talk of ethnic cleansing: a massive bout of it just went on in Nagorno-Karabakh, carried out by the Azerbaijani dictatorship with its "one country, two states" ideology - and for those who don't know, by the second state Aliyev means Turkey, not NK. Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, whoever carries it out and whoever the victims are, but for some reason this particular instance hasn't been covered much outside of Armenia.
Certainly Azerbaijan was assisted by a major player. There's no doubt about that. In Russia there hasn't even been any strong TALK in response. The Russian government's attitude towards Armenia is Windsor Davies-ist. It's that if they want any support they can whistle for it because they're in the US camp now. Whoever assisted Azerbaijan it wasn't either Russia or Iran.
No, it was Turkey
Yes. And very successfully done.
Azerbaijan has also been armed by Israel.
With the US doing a job on Armenia itself.
All of this adds up to a change in the balance of power in the region away from Iran, which probably scares the bejeesus out of the Iranian government.
And Iran's been stoking Hamas for years. Let Iran take the Gazans, see how much longer the conflict lasts.
Israel is one of the powers that arms Azerbaijan, which is carrying out ethnic cleansing on a very large scale right now.
(You probably think this is justified because Iran is bad, Israel has a right to "defend" its interests however Israel chooses, and suckers who lose wars should be grateful for any "generosity" shown by the victors.)
Iran is one of the powers that has assisted the authorities in Gaza, which is in its current state precisely because of large-scale ethnic cleansing.
(You probably think this is bad because the Palestinians are bad, they don't deserve to be recognised as existing as any kind of country or people, and anyone who supports them is bad.)
We can agree that Israel is not in the Caucasus, but is exerting an influence there, and Iran is not in the Levant, but is exerting an influence there.
For some reason you think Israel's influence is justified but Iran's isn't.
I'm guessing you might even agree with Benyamin Netanyahu that Mutually Assured Destruction was wonderful for the US and USSR and kept "the peace" in Europe for decades, whereas it would be awful if the situation in SW Asia were to change from one where Israel has lots of nukes and Iran hasn't got any nukes at all.
McTominey saves his manager’s job in 3 minutes and added time. Being interviewed, he says “At this club you never give up, I have been here since I was 5 years old and I know it better than anyone.”
Which raises the question of why Ten Hag spent most of the transfer window trying to off load him. Players who feel like that and care like that ARE your team. I really hope he sees that.
The counter factual is that when Sharon handed over Gaza the Palestinians had ceased military action against Israel and dedicated themselves to become, say oh I don't know, Singapore on Jordan.
Think of the UN/US/World Bank billions that would have been poured in.
But no - they wanted to push Israel into the sea. Perhaps giving them Gaza was seen as a victory for violence. As Abba Eban noted and how true it seems to be, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
They can't become Singapore on Jordan, because Israel (understandably) doesn't allow Gaza to have an airport, and for the last 18 years has blockaded the small port of Gaza.
Nice story Mike of a different time. If any of my kids had wanted to go to Gaza as students I think I would have had heart failure. Of course, they didn't. Several parts of the world are now just too dangerous, even for adventurous types. The available world is getting smaller.
Though bigger too. Places like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were off limits once, as were Algeria, Colombia, even China when I was young. All on the tourist trail now.
I missed out on Kashmir in 1990 when the troubles blew up, and wished that I had got there a year earlier.
What Hamas are up to is barbaric, but the history of mutual atrocity in Israel and Palestine has shown that no atrocity is too brutal. No doubt the Israeli revenge will be taken on women and civilians too.
Once again.
Equivalent between brutal terrorists torturing women and a trained professional army.
There are very likely to be civilian casualties as a result of any Israeli action. That will be unfortunate and we can argue that Israel should do their best to minimise them. I am sure they will, within the constraints of their military calculus (which is different to ours)
But this is not “revenge”. It is not “torture”. It is not an “atrocity”.
Your false equivalence is the failing of the West. It enables the evil that is Hamas.
You should be ashamed
Israel does not have a professional army, it has a conscript army.
McTominey saves his manager’s job in 3 minutes and added time. Being interviewed, he says “At this club you never give up, I have been here since I was 5 years old and I know it better than anyone.”
Which raises the question of why Ten Hag spent most of the transfer window trying to off load him. Players who feel like that and care like that ARE your team. I really hope he sees that.
Not if they’re crap players they’re not.
He isn't crap though - he's a classic battling midfield grafter. That Cafe Haag doesn't get him is the crap bit. Watch how the national team uses him - a great player.
The only solution to the Israel/Palestine issue is to… make more Israel.
The strategic argument is that with Palestine as a state, Israel is too narrow.
This means that the security pragmatists in Israel align with the religious idiots.
Instead, fill in large chunks of the Mediterranean. Make more land. This will cost a few hundred billion, but will detach the pragmatists and then you have a peace - the Palestinians have their land and the Israelis have their land.
Little ant-like robots powered by AI superbatteries and capable of self-reproducing could have themselves a raucous singularity simulation party, sweeping up material from the seabed working from west to east.
E-kibbutzes welcoming idealistic young guests from around the world could assist in the early stages, accommodated first on stationary vessels, then on rigs, then on artificial islands.
China would help.
PS I understand your point that there is no effing solution.
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?
TRANSCRIPT:
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them......
I always hoped Humza Yousaf would be a catastrophic leader. I’m grateful to him for fulfilling my aspirations so quickly
Your judgment on how pols will turn out is of course legendary. The day some random on an obscure website didn’t like Humza’s statement on events in Gaza will be seen as a crucial point in his downfall.
It does seem a bit strange to get the arsehole because some Scottish politician isn't emoting hard enough on his socials over events Israel.
For a cove that RSI-ed his wrists with posting about Liz Truss's necklace, this is Socratic by comparison.
The Israeli Minister for Energy and Infrastructure, Israel Katz has signed an order that directs the National Electric Company to Halt the Supply of Electricity to the Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip.
There has been an obvious solution to the Palestinian problem for decades. And a fairly easy one, as the September 9th issue of the Economist reminded me. Turns out that a Muslim nation, Uzbekistan, once had a substantial Jewish population, about 200,000. They fled Muslim and Communist persection, and now about half of them are in the US, half of them in the UK.
The same is true of many Arab nations; they once had substantial Jewish populations, but do no longer. Now it is true that none of these nations particularly want the Palestinians, but they should take them in, anyway.
This solution follows the "aggressor pays" rule, which is a good one, in general.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. Who knew that the solution was simply to wipe Palestine off the map? Seems so obvious now you mention it.
What Palestine on the map?
Egypt and Transjordan already wiped Palestine off the map in 1947.
They tried twice to wipe Israel off the map and failed both times and the disputed territory isn't Palestinian land it's ex Egyptian and Jordanian land and they've renounced their claims to it.
If they take responsibility for their actions and take the people who can't peacefully live in Israel's land, that's taking responsibility for their own history and may allow peace.
What do you mean, "what Palestine"? The country of Palestine. The one next to Israel, that one.
What country of Palestine? There is none. Egypt and Transjordan, as well as Arafat saw to that.
There is a state that has not acquired country status as part of the land for peace accords agreed with Arafat but since Arafat then rejected peace and so have Hamas they've no right to country status and don't have it.
If they lose the land they acquired from false commitments to peace and from losing a war then fair enough.
Look, I don't know why you keep talking about Arafat. Well over half the population of Palestine was born since Arafat died. Whatever Arafat did or didn't do is not their fault. And these people, these Palestinians, these humans. Where do they live? Palestine is a place. It's recognised by the vast majority of the world. It exists.
It's not their sovereign territory, it is disputed territory like Crimea which is occupied by Russia.
On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. In his speech to the nation held on that day he announced his decision and explained that this decision was made with the aim of helping the Palestinian people establishing their own independent state.[59][60]
Since King Hussein's country had lost control of that land in a war it began against a nation that was defending it's very right to exist that doesn't mean the land is Palestinian, it means it's Israels.
Now if Israel wishes to gift that land to the Palestinians that is quite generous and they've tried that for decades. If that doesn't work, then deporting those who refuse to recognise their right to exist might be a last resort.
Germany lost land to France, to Poland and others at the end of WWII. Do you think that land should be returned to Germany now?
The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII. The Arabs deserved the same after 47 and 67 but Israel were the better humans.
Nobody deserves to be deported for things that their government or the government of a neighbouring country has done. The ethnic Germans living in Poland and just getting on with their own lives weren't to blame for anything. Ordinary Arabs in Israel or Palestine aren't to blame. Don't punish the innocent.
This exchange is a perfect example of why, very sadly, when this conflict is the subject of pb I find the comments simply unreadable. You two aren’t talking to each other. At all. You might as well boil your own heads in a vat of oil for all the good it will do.
Firstly, fuck off.
Secondly, if you haven't fucked off yet, I'm responding directly and, I have to say, rather obviously to anyone with a brain cell, to this: "The only difference is the Poles deported the Germans en mass. Which they kind of deserved after WWII."
The clue is in my exactly duplicating of the language: "Nobody deserves to be deported for things that..."
Thirdly, fuck off.
But when two tribes go to war repeatedly and one refuses another's right to exist then eventually enough is enough. That point was reached in WWII. The Red Army deserves a lot of criticism for most of what it did, including the ethnic cleansing in Crimea for instance deporting the Tatars, but for deporting the Germans who had elected the Nazis and repeatedly sort to exterminate people?
Hamas refuses to recognise Israel's very right to exist, and the Palestinians in Gaza are supporting Hamas. Eventually removing from Israel's land, which includes Gaza, those who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist may be a last resort.
Hopefully it can be avoided and another way to defeat Hamas and enforce a peace can be found. But history hasn't been kind with that yet.
Don’t forget that the Sudeten Germans and the status of Danzig were explicitly used by Hitler to justify the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and Poland
On Israel and Palestine I think a lot of people have instinctive sympathy for the latter which is justified because they are clearly the side without significant power.
One problem, and is far from the biggest problem for them, is how loonier elements use that as a springboard for far wilder positions, which can undercut galvanising that sympathy.
McTominey saves his manager’s job in 3 minutes and added time. Being interviewed, he says “At this club you never give up, I have been here since I was 5 years old and I know it better than anyone.”
Which raises the question of why Ten Hag spent most of the transfer window trying to off load him. Players who feel like that and care like that ARE your team. I really hope he sees that.
Not if they’re crap players they’re not.
He isn't crap though - he's a classic battling midfield grafter. That Cafe Haag doesn't get him is the crap bit. Watch how the national team uses him - a great player.
He isn't crap, but someone simply feeling that way is not in itself useful if they are.
Nice story Mike of a different time. If any of my kids had wanted to go to Gaza as students I think I would have had heart failure. Of course, they didn't. Several parts of the world are now just too dangerous, even for adventurous types. The available world is getting smaller.
Though bigger too. Places like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were off limits once, as were Algeria, Colombia, even China when I was young. All on the tourist trail now.
I missed out on Kashmir in 1990 when the troubles blew up, and wished that I had got there a year earlier.
What Hamas are up to is barbaric, but the history of mutual atrocity in Israel and Palestine has shown that no atrocity is too brutal. No doubt the Israeli revenge will be taken on women and civilians too.
Once again.
Equivalent between brutal terrorists torturing women and a trained professional army.
There are very likely to be civilian casualties as a result of any Israeli action. That will be unfortunate and we can argue that Israel should do their best to minimise them. I am sure they will, within the constraints of their military calculus (which is different to ours)
But this is not “revenge”. It is not “torture”. It is not an “atrocity”.
Your false equivalence is the failing of the West. It enables the evil that is Hamas.
You should be ashamed
The failing of the West is, if anything, more likely due to its one-sided support of Israel. This doesn't go unnoticed around the world and likely contributes to the half-hearted nature of sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.
McTominey saves his manager’s job in 3 minutes and added time. Being interviewed, he says “At this club you never give up, I have been here since I was 5 years old and I know it better than anyone.”
Which raises the question of why Ten Hag spent most of the transfer window trying to off load him. Players who feel like that and care like that ARE your team. I really hope he sees that.
Not if they’re crap players they’re not.
He isn't crap though - he's a classic battling midfield grafter. That Cafe Haag doesn't get him is the crap bit. Watch how the national team uses him - a great player.
‘Great’, no. Players like Best, Moore, Lineker and Gascoigne are greats.
He is not. He may become one he is not now.
Anyway my point was not about him. The point I responded to was talking about players with passion making your team. Not this sainted genius. I am saying passion is not enough.you have to have ability.
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?
TRANSCRIPT:
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them......
On Israel and Palestine I think a lot of people have instinctive sympathy for the latter which is justified because they are clearly the side without significant power.
One problem, and is far from the biggest problem for them, is how loonier elements use that as a springboard for far wilder positions, which can undercut galvanising that sympathy.
That may be true now but it’s not always been that way.
The counter factual is that when Sharon handed over Gaza the Palestinians had ceased military action against Israel and dedicated themselves to become, say oh I don't know, Singapore on Jordan.
Think of the UN/US/World Bank billions that would have been poured in.
But no - they wanted to push Israel into the sea. Perhaps giving them Gaza was seen as a victory for violence. As Abba Eban noted and how true it seems to be, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
They can't become Singapore on Jordan, because Israel (understandably) doesn't allow Gaza to have an airport, and for the last 18 years has blockaded the small port of Gaza.
So, there's no possibility of industry emerging.
Read what I wrote.
My point being this is because they have never renounced violence.
The only solution to the Israel/Palestine issue is to… make more Israel.
The strategic argument is that with Palestine as a state, Israel is too narrow.
This means that the security pragmatists in Israel align with the religious idiots.
Instead, fill in large chunks of the Mediterranean. Make more land. This will cost a few hundred billion, but will detach the pragmatists and then you have a peace - the Palestinians have their land and the Israelis have their land.
Not really feasible. The continental shelf is very narrow off Israel. It plunges very deep only a few miles off the coast, and there is no really shallow water at all.
I think there is enough before you go below 250m.
250m is incredibly deep for land reclamation. We’d usually be talking sea no deeper than 10-20m max.
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?
TRANSCRIPT:
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them......
"Israel to stop supplying electricity to Gaza Strip Number of Israelis killed rises to 100 Israeli captives placed in secure locations and tunnels, says Hamas"
The counter factual is that when Sharon handed over Gaza the Palestinians had ceased military action against Israel and dedicated themselves to become, say oh I don't know, Singapore on Jordan.
Think of the UN/US/World Bank billions that would have been poured in.
But no - they wanted to push Israel into the sea. Perhaps giving them Gaza was seen as a victory for violence. As Abba Eban noted and how true it seems to be, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
They can't become Singapore on Jordan, because Israel (understandably) doesn't allow Gaza to have an airport, and for the last 18 years has blockaded the small port of Gaza.
So, there's no possibility of industry emerging.
It’s a prison camp.
More of a ghetto, as Palestinians are allowed to leave for work.
The problem on both sides are the extremists that refuse the others right to exist. Hamas has its polar opposite in the settlers who refuse to accept that the Palestinians have any rights to the land at all.
Nothing justifies terrorism like we have seen today though.
There is a video of an Israeli girl, kidnapped by Hamas, being thrown around by Hamas militants, in and out of a car
Don't worry, I will not link
It has been pointed out on TwitterX that the bloodstains on her clothes show that she has, almost certainly, been brutally raped, many times. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it
If I was an Israeli, seeing that, I would want Netanyahu to go in and kill every single person in Gaza, the steel would enter my soul
Killing everyone is far too far.
The humane thing to do is deport them.
Ethnic cleansing of Gaza would be a bloodbath and probably drag the whole of the Middle East into a war.
Anybody who thinks there is a solution is delusional. Al-Quds has changed hands 50-odd times over the centuries and will again in the future. The idea that there is a workable answer to all this is laughable.
Nonsense
Even the most endless of conflicts come to an end. I remember the despair which surrounded Northern Ireland in the early 80s. It was a centuries-old war that would go on forever, and there was nothing to be done about it. And yet, here we are, it is over
Thankfully that was achieved by compromise and vision. But intractable wars can also end when one side gains a commanding advantage and annihilates the other
It's not over. Not by a long way.
You think Ireland will return to widespread violence, akin to the Troubles? I don't
As long as neither side makes any egregious errors, the conflict is done, apart from a few nutters
Much as I hate to agree with @TOPPING he’s right on this occasion
England backs always look like they have never played together and nobody has told them what position each of supposedly to be playing, where as you watch the likes of Fiji or Samoa and they play with really fluidity.
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?
TRANSCRIPT:
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them......
There are plenty of Israelis with genocidal intentions towards the Arabs, though.
Half the Israeli cabinet, by the looks of it.
But its not in their constitution......
At the end of the day, Israel is still a kind of democracy, and I’ll defend its right to exist and indeed to defend itself.
I just don’t think the essay you cite is very helpful. There are many good, decent and innocent Arabs, and it is impossible to understand Hamas without considering the broader history of state-sponsored persecution by Israel.
Hamas must understand that open war with Israel means they lose. So if he is saying all that then its because they are backed by Iran. All those missiles got into Gaza with assistance from someone, did they not?
If this escalates then it is going to be Israel vs genocidal maniacs. And we need to back Israel. Because in a democracy vs theocracy fight there can be no prevarication. I assume that Hamas envisage the glorious martyrdom of Palestinian civilians as some kind of positive. Which itself is madness.
There is a video of an Israeli girl, kidnapped by Hamas, being thrown around by Hamas militants, in and out of a car
Don't worry, I will not link
It has been pointed out on TwitterX that the bloodstains on her clothes show that she has, almost certainly, been brutally raped, many times. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it
If I was an Israeli, seeing that, I would want Netanyahu to go in and kill every single person in Gaza, the steel would enter my soul
Killing everyone is far too far.
The humane thing to do is deport them.
Ethnic cleansing of Gaza would be a bloodbath and probably drag the whole of the Middle East into a war.
Anybody who thinks there is a solution is delusional. Al-Quds has changed hands 50-odd times over the centuries and will again in the future. The idea that there is a workable answer to all this is laughable.
Nonsense
Even the most endless of conflicts come to an end. I remember the despair which surrounded Northern Ireland in the early 80s. It was a centuries-old war that would go on forever, and there was nothing to be done about it. And yet, here we are, it is over
Thankfully that was achieved by compromise and vision. But intractable wars can also end when one side gains a commanding advantage and annihilates the other
It's not over. Not by a long way.
You think Ireland will return to widespread violence, akin to the Troubles? I don't
As long as neither side makes any egregious errors, the conflict is done, apart from a few nutters
Much as I hate to agree with @TOPPING he’s right on this occasion
We're responsible for messing up the region in 1948.
No we're not.
What happened in 1948 wasn't our choice.
It wasn't the UN's choice either (where correct me if I'm wrong we were from memory outvoted but didn't use our veto).
What happened in 1948 and since was the Arab state's fault. Theirs and theirs alone.
A lot of it was France’s fault 😜
They were paranoid about the Mandate being extended to cover Lebanon and Syria which they saw as their sphere of influence
So they funded both Jewish and Arab terrorists to attack the British. That led to the King David bombing by the Irgun and created the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood and ultimately Hamas
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?
TRANSCRIPT:
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them......
There are plenty of Israelis with genocidal intentions towards the Arabs, though.
Half the Israeli cabinet, by the looks of it.
But its not in their constitution......
At the end of the day, Israel is still a kind of democracy, and I’ll defend its right to exist and indeed to defend itself.
I just don’t think the essay you cite is very helpful. There are many good, decent and innocent Arabs, and it is impossible to understand Hamas without considering the broader history of state-sponsored persecution by Israel.
The whole situation reeks of an abusive relationship. The incoherent male standing over the beaten woman saying, “look what you made me do.”
And, like a lot of men, Israel believes it to be true. A couple can separate. Two peoples who want to live on the same land? Tricky.
Nice story Mike of a different time. If any of my kids had wanted to go to Gaza as students I think I would have had heart failure. Of course, they didn't. Several parts of the world are now just too dangerous, even for adventurous types. The available world is getting smaller.
Though bigger too. Places like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were off limits once, as were Algeria, Colombia, even China when I was young. All on the tourist trail now.
I missed out on Kashmir in 1990 when the troubles blew up, and wished that I had got there a year earlier.
What Hamas are up to is barbaric, but the history of mutual atrocity in Israel and Palestine has shown that no atrocity is too brutal. No doubt the Israeli revenge will be taken on women and civilians too.
Once again.
Equivalent between brutal terrorists torturing women and a trained professional army.
There are very likely to be civilian casualties as a result of any Israeli action. That will be unfortunate and we can argue that Israel should do their best to minimise them. I am sure they will, within the constraints of their military calculus (which is different to ours)
But this is not “revenge”. It is not “torture”. It is not an “atrocity”.
Your false equivalence is the failing of the West. It enables the evil that is Hamas.
You should be ashamed
The failing of the West is, if anything, more likely due to its one-sided support of Israel. This doesn't go unnoticed around the world and likely contributes to the half-hearted nature of sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.
The West is not one-sided. But, what you point to is a clash in outlooks.
The West claims to pursue an ethical foreign policy, but often subordinates ethics to National self-interest, appearing hypocritical.
The rest of the world does not even make such a claim. Its leaders take the older view that the strong do as they may, the weak as they must.
Israel has been invaded, has seen its citizens kidnapped, and has no choice but to invade the Gaza strip.
This is unbelievably shit, principally for innocent Israelis.
It's also hard to work out what Hamas thinks they could possible gain from this. They are not going to - and can never have thought it possible - defeat Israel militarily.
The only possible long-term consequence of this is that life in the Gaza Strip, which was already unbelievably shit, becomes shitter yet.
You know what, I get it. If I was in the Gaza Strip, I'd probably hate the Israelis with a passion. I'd live in fear that the power or the water would be cut off again. I'd be livid that my city was choked off from the world by Israel.
But while that hatred may be understandable, it doesn't justify an attack that will only make things worse for ordinary Palestinians in Gaza.
It's time to face reality: the Gaza Strip is not sustainable. It represents a security threat to Israel, such that they need to seal it from the world. But Israel's actions create a seething mass of resentment that is channeled by Hamas into eruptions of violence.
And, by the way, the more you squeeze Gaza, the more people feel they have nothing to lose. If life is already shit, how much worse can the Israelis make it?
I don't know what the solution is. Involuntary resettlement of people away from the coast is one option. But there are two million people in Gaza. That's a lot of people, and is the Israeli military strong enough to do that? And where would they go?
Normally, I'm filled with ideas and solutions. But here, not so much. Israel has a right to exist. Israel has a right to defend itself. And it has been attacked and its citizens kidnapped. That's fucking shit. But the things that bring Israel long-term security come with a massive price that would be paid not by Hamas (which would probably end up strengthened), but by ordinary Palestinians.
Didn’t Lord Rothschild buy a chunk of Argentina to be the new Jewish homeland at one point? May be we could use that?
Hamas must understand that open war with Israel means they lose. So if he is saying all that then its because they are backed by Iran. All those missiles got into Gaza with assistance from someone, did they not?
If this escalates then it is going to be Israel vs genocidal maniacs. And we need to back Israel. Because in a democracy vs theocracy fight there can be no prevarication. I assume that Hamas envisage the glorious martyrdom of Palestinian civilians as some kind of positive. Which itself is madness.
Hamas must know they cannot win an open war with Israel so what is their strategy and end game here ?
Some people on social media speculating it’s to stop the deal,between the Saudis and Israelis.
What is clear is Israel looks weak and their intelligence has had a colossal failure. This skirmish will probably Peter out but that chronic failure should concern Israel more than anything else.
The counter factual is that when Sharon handed over Gaza the Palestinians had ceased military action against Israel and dedicated themselves to become, say oh I don't know, Singapore on Jordan.
Think of the UN/US/World Bank billions that would have been poured in.
But no - they wanted to push Israel into the sea. Perhaps giving them Gaza was seen as a victory for violence. As Abba Eban noted and how true it seems to be, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
How right Abba Eban was.
I'm not starry-eyed about the Israelis, but I'm also not sure I give a shit about the Palestinians.
Anas Sarwar would become first minister at the next Holyrood election and lead Scottish Labour to power for the first time in 20 years, a landmark new poll has found.
The resurgent party threatens to end the SNP’s grip on Scottish politics by running almost neck and neck with the nationalists at the general election. It is also on course to be the largest party by a single seat at Holyrood in a mirror image of how the SNP first came to power, according to analysis of a Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times.
How the hell did they manage to build up such an arsenal in Gaza without the Israelis knowing about it? As you’ve said, an incredible and unprecedented intelligence failure.
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?
TRANSCRIPT:
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them......
There are plenty of Israelis with genocidal intentions towards the Arabs, though.
Half the Israeli cabinet, by the looks of it.
But its not in their constitution......
At the end of the day, Israel is still a kind of democracy, and I’ll defend its right to exist and indeed to defend itself.
I just don’t think the essay you cite is very helpful. There are many good, decent and innocent Arabs, and it is impossible to understand Hamas without considering the broader history of state-sponsored persecution by Israel.
The whole situation reeks of an abusive relationship. The incoherent male standing over the beaten woman saying, “look what you made me do.”
And, like a lot of men, Israel believes it to be true. A couple can separate. Two peoples who want to live on the same land? Tricky.
Israel is the woman in that analogy presumably?
They have been the ones beaten and attacked consistently from the Holocaust through to today without interruption by those who deny their right to even exist.
Nice story Mike of a different time. If any of my kids had wanted to go to Gaza as students I think I would have had heart failure. Of course, they didn't. Several parts of the world are now just too dangerous, even for adventurous types. The available world is getting smaller.
Though bigger too. Places like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were off limits once, as were Algeria, Colombia, even China when I was young. All on the tourist trail now.
I missed out on Kashmir in 1990 when the troubles blew up, and wished that I had got there a year earlier.
What Hamas are up to is barbaric, but the history of mutual atrocity in Israel and Palestine has shown that no atrocity is too brutal. No doubt the Israeli revenge will be taken on women and civilians too.
Once again.
Equivalent between brutal terrorists torturing women and a trained professional army.
There are very likely to be civilian casualties as a result of any Israeli action. That will be unfortunate and we can argue that Israel should do their best to minimise them. I am sure they will, within the constraints of their military calculus (which is different to ours)
But this is not “revenge”. It is not “torture”. It is not an “atrocity”.
Your false equivalence is the failing of the West. It enables the evil that is Hamas.
You should be ashamed
I'm not sure it matters to the dead if they are killed by a 'professionally trained army' or not.
The counter factual is that when Sharon handed over Gaza the Palestinians had ceased military action against Israel and dedicated themselves to become, say oh I don't know, Singapore on Jordan.
Think of the UN/US/World Bank billions that would have been poured in.
But no - they wanted to push Israel into the sea. Perhaps giving them Gaza was seen as a victory for violence. As Abba Eban noted and how true it seems to be, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
How right Abba Eban was.
I'm not starry-eyed about the Israelis, but I'm also not sure I give a shit about the Palestinians.
Their complaint is not so much about oppression as about the fact they aren’t the oppressors.
No arms off the ball tackle, just a penalty....compare to Curry incident that got him sent off and banned for 3 games (which could have been 6 if he didn't have a good record and begged for forgiveness) .
This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?
TRANSCRIPT:
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them......
It's a lie regardless how many clips at an advertising company's website say otherwise.
You write as if it's not possible to be an enemy of Israel (which let us recall is an ethnic-supremacist regime) without wanting to kill all the Jews. Utterly crazy rabid talk.
This insane idea is essentially what's conveyed in the neo-Nazis' "14 words".
If you're interested in past genocide, though, and its present-tense relationship to denying large numbers of people the right to live where they come from, by expelling them, take a look at Nagorno-Karabakh this week.
Curiously this is Muslims doing it to Christians and yet still the opinion formers in the largely Christian west aren't causing any sections of their home populations to be appalled by it or even to notice it much.
Comments
But you'll never cease to be antisemitic. If only Hitler had finished the job, eh?
But the silence is understandable. Who would wish him many happy returns?
Those of us who have always hoped for a negotiated two state solution should probably give up on the idea.
Perhaps a better analogy is the pre-civil rights era South.
Oh
"Scottish First Minister hopeful Humza Yousaf met former Hamas chief"
https://www.thejc.com/news/news/scottish-first-minister-hopeful-humza-yousaf-met-former-hamas-chief-6FYnnRGZMqczibvhaAqnpB
Equivalent between brutal terrorists torturing women and a trained professional army.
There are very likely to be civilian casualties as a result of any Israeli action. That will be unfortunate and we can argue that Israel should do their best to minimise them. I am sure they will, within the constraints of their military calculus (which is different to ours)
But this is not “revenge”. It is not “torture”. It is not an “atrocity”.
Your false equivalence is the failing of the West. It enables the evil that is Hamas.
You should be ashamed
Arab states at the time and many Arabs still now never really accepted the creation of a state of Israel alongside a Palestinian Arab state as the UN had suggested and Israel now wants to expand beyond the original boundaries it had in 1948. A compromise was and is very hard to achieve
Unfortunately the Arabs are unwilling to assist their brethren (that’s why you still have refugee camps in Jordan - they can’t even work).
Turns out that dictatorships don’t like the idea of large number of radical militants settling in their territory
So, there's no possibility of industry emerging.
Which raises the question of why Ten Hag spent most of the transfer window trying to off load him. Players who feel like that and care like that ARE your team. I really hope he sees that.
(You probably think this is justified because Iran is bad, Israel has a right to "defend" its interests however Israel chooses, and suckers who lose wars should be grateful for any "generosity" shown by the victors.)
Iran is one of the powers that has assisted the authorities in Gaza, which is in its current state precisely because of large-scale ethnic cleansing.
(You probably think this is bad because the Palestinians are bad, they don't deserve to be recognised as existing as any kind of country or people, and anyone who supports them is bad.)
We can agree that Israel is not in the Caucasus, but is exerting an influence there, and Iran is not in the Levant, but is exerting an influence there.
For some reason you think Israel's influence is justified but Iran's isn't.
I'm guessing you might even agree with Benyamin Netanyahu that Mutually Assured Destruction was wonderful for the US and USSR and kept "the peace" in Europe for decades, whereas it would be awful if the situation in SW Asia were to change from one where Israel has lots of nukes and Iran hasn't got any nukes at all.
I believe it's traditional - known as the full English
E-kibbutzes welcoming idealistic young guests from around the world could assist in the early stages, accommodated first on stationary vessels, then on rigs, then on artificial islands.
China would help.
PS I understand your point that there is no effing solution.
The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it?
TRANSCRIPT:
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them......
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1710695934445694993?s=20
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1710696698077380669?s=20
One problem, and is far from the biggest problem for them, is how loonier elements use that as a springboard for far wilder positions, which can undercut galvanising that sympathy. He isn't crap, but someone simply feeling that way is not in itself useful if they are.
He is not. He may become one he is not now.
Anyway my point was not about him. The point I responded to was talking about players with passion making your team. Not this sainted genius. I am saying passion is not enough.you have to have ability.
Half the Israeli cabinet, by the looks of it.
This quote from Haniyeh underscores Hamas's determination to escalate further:
“The battle moved into the heart of the Zionist entity"
https://x.com/SamRamani2/status/1710698929841471720?s=20
My point being this is because they have never renounced violence.
Number of Israelis killed rises to 100
Israeli captives placed in secure locations and tunnels, says Hamas"
https://news.sky.com
The problem on both sides are the extremists that refuse the others right to exist. Hamas has its polar opposite in the settlers who refuse to accept that the Palestinians have any rights to the land at all.
Nothing justifies terrorism like we have seen today though.
I just don’t think the essay you cite is very helpful.
There are many good, decent and innocent Arabs, and it is impossible to understand Hamas without considering the broader history of state-sponsored persecution by Israel.
If this escalates then it is going to be Israel vs genocidal maniacs. And we need to back Israel. Because in a democracy vs theocracy fight there can be no prevarication. I assume that Hamas envisage the glorious martyrdom of Palestinian civilians as some kind of positive. Which itself is madness.
They were paranoid about the Mandate being extended to cover Lebanon and Syria which they saw as their sphere of influence
So they funded both Jewish and Arab terrorists to attack the British. That led to the King David bombing by the Irgun and created the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood and ultimately Hamas
Was also Himmler’s birthday apparently.
And my brother’s.
https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1710704196087935043
And, like a lot of men, Israel believes it to be true. A couple can separate. Two peoples who want to live on the same land? Tricky.
Weird world we live in.
The West claims to pursue an ethical foreign policy, but often subordinates ethics to National self-interest, appearing hypocritical.
The rest of the world does not even make such a claim. Its leaders take the older view that the strong do as they may, the weak as
they must.
Some people on social media speculating it’s to stop the deal,between the Saudis and Israelis.
What is clear is Israel looks weak and their intelligence has had a colossal failure. This skirmish will probably Peter out but that chronic failure should concern Israel more than anything else.
In any case, Hitler was not put off signing the Haavara Agreement with Zionist German Jews.
The greatest British filmmaker of all time. That’s all.
The resurgent party threatens to end the SNP’s grip on Scottish politics by running almost neck and neck with the nationalists at the general election. It is also on course to be the largest party by a single seat at Holyrood in a mirror image of how the SNP first came to power, according to analysis of a Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times.
Despite falling short of a majority, it is an open secret in the Scottish parliament that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would lend Labour the support it needed
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anas-sarwar-on-track-to-be-first-minister-says-poll-vcpfkqf28
They have been the ones beaten and attacked consistently from the Holocaust through to today without interruption by those who deny their right to even exist.
Rugby rules are a mess.
And Kubrick if you can count him as a honorary Brit.
It's a lie regardless how many clips at an advertising company's website say otherwise.
You write as if it's not possible to be an enemy of Israel (which let us recall is an ethnic-supremacist regime) without wanting to kill all the Jews. Utterly crazy rabid talk.
This insane idea is essentially what's conveyed in the neo-Nazis' "14 words".
If you're interested in past genocide, though, and its present-tense relationship to denying large numbers of people the right to live where they come from, by expelling them, take a look at Nagorno-Karabakh this week.
Curiously this is Muslims doing it to Christians and yet still the opinion formers in the largely Christian west aren't causing any sections of their home populations to be appalled by it or even to notice it much.