I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
They are not Egyptians.
If you advocated resettling at least a proportion in the UK as refugees then I might have some respect for that position.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
Think about what you have just said. Really think about it. Yuck.
OK thought about it. Stand by it.
In a hierarchy of evil, which is more evil. Mass murdering and killing people? Or finding them somewhere else to live?
That is not the choice facing anyone.
Bullshit!
That is exactly the choice. This mass murder and killing is happening. Its been happening for decades.
Now does it get stopped, or does it continue? If it gets stopped, then how?
Relocating people who would have been Egyptian anyway had Israel not taken the land in a defensive war from Egypt, into elsewhere in Egypt, seems to me infinitely less evil than continuing this mass murder that is happening.
There are reports and pictures of what look like children burnt to death in their beds. The sort of thing we saw in the Bosnian war.
Meanwhile in Britain children at Jewish schools in North London are being told not to wear any identifying badges or uniform jackets so as to minimise the risk of attack. And in Sydney demonstrators shout "gas the Jews'.
It is 2023.
Hamas and its fellow travellers need to be dealt with once and for all. I have not felt so unambiguously on the side of Israel since the 90s.
Holly Willoughby says she is quitting ITV show This Morning after 14 years “for me and my family”
A man is awaiting trial, charged with plotting to kidnap and murder Holly Willoughby, so you can see why she might be a bit shaken up even without the whole Schofield mess.
I can't understand why the Guardian keep him on. It's not as is his cartoons are insightful or funny...
Everybody can say something ill judged, push the boundary and end up getting it wrong / overstepping the mark, but there does seem to be a consistent pattern to how often / what topics his cartoons end up in this territory.
Not one of his cartoons has ever even made me smile, let alone laugh. He's shite. His continued employment is a decided mystery, quite apart from the alleged racism
Lots of very fashionable cartoonists don't intend to make you laugh. They intend you to think (a) that they are very clever and (b) the world constitutes unredeemable horrors in which there is no courage, hope, opportunity, help for pain or redemption. The thought that (b) is the problem not the solution does not occur to them.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
I've no real view on that, but if the populations of Gaza wishes to relocate to Egypt then that'd be a win.
The Gulf states could presumably fund that to the extent that every one of the current Gaza population would be set up for life. Make it voluntary but I bet very few would refuse to move.
A familiar feature of stories about war crimes is that they are often provoked by atrocity stories. These are in turn often created by misunderstanding the effects that fire, high explosives and animal depredations have on corpses.
Breaker Morant was convinced that local Boer resistance was committing various atrocities - they weren’t, as it happens. But he was so convinced that he started commuting war crimes of his own.
"Protest or Power. That's why we changed our party."
A good line. Prepped for just such an occasion no doubt.
I have to say this particular protest group seems particularly barmy. Many people, me amongst them, are skeptical about citizen assemblies, but at least they are usually proposed to be about something specific. But to have a permanent one to tackle, essentially, everything, well then you really are just saying why even have elections at all.
Who gets to be on the citizen assembly? Anyone who wants to or would there be, er... elections?
Democratic lottery apparently. But I presume that means you cannot turn down a place, so unlike being an MP you really could not resign.
I'll be charitable and call it a bloody barmy idea, even if one thinks things like a Citizen Assembly to tackle specific issues are a good idea.
Can't we just offer up PB.com to run the country?
It wouldn't always be plain-sailing, there'd be disputes, sure, even resignations, but we'd surely do a lot better than the current mob?
"Protest or Power. That's why we changed our party."
A good line. Prepped for just such an occasion no doubt.
I have to say this particular protest group seems particularly barmy. Many people, me amongst them, are skeptical about citizen assemblies, but at least they are usually proposed to be about something specific. But to have a permanent one to tackle, essentially, everything, well then you really are just saying why even have elections at all.
Who gets to be on the citizen assembly? Anyone who wants to or would there be, er... elections?
Democratic lottery apparently. But I presume that means you cannot turn down a place, so unlike being an MP you really could not resign.
I'll be charitable and call it a bloody barmy idea, even if one thinks things like a Citizen Assembly to tackle specific issues are a good idea.
Can't we just offer up PB.com to run the country?
It wouldn't always be plain-sailing, there'd be disputes, sure, even resignations, but we'd surely do a lot better than the current mob?
Be careful. Don’t set a precedent that lets Conservative Home or Labour Voice get in.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
They are not Egyptians.
If you advocated resettling at least a proportion in the UK as refugees then I might have some respect for that position.
Why aren't they Egyptians?
The land was Egypt before it was taken by Israel in a defensive war. Were they not Egyptians when that happened?
Egypt should take some responsibility for its own actions.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
They are not Egyptians.
If you advocated resettling at least a proportion in the UK as refugees then I might have some respect for that position.
These people that have happily supported Hamas? I'm sorry, but there is no way back. If you're Russian or Palestinian then you've had ample chance to not be part of the horror story.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
"During the British Mandate, beginning in 1920, and in the early days after independence in 1932, well-educated Jews played an important role in civic life. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 [is that date correct??] were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy. Between 1924–1928, some Jews fled persecution in Russia, arriving in Iraq as refugees."
It seems that Arabs and Jews were living in relative harmony in Iraq until Zionism became a thing.
There are reports and pictures of what look like children burnt to death in their beds. The sort of thing we saw in the Bosnian war.
Meanwhile in Britain children at Jewish schools in North London are being told not to wear any identifying badges or uniform jackets so as to minimise the risk of attack. And in Sydney demonstrators shout "gas the Jews'.
It is 2023.
And some people waving swastikas at yesterday’s pro-Palestine celebrations in London.
A familiar feature of stories about war crimes is that they are often provoked by atrocity stories. These are in turn often created by misunderstanding the effects that fire, high explosives and animal depredations have on corpses.
Breaker Morant was convinced that local Boer resistance was committing various atrocities - they weren’t, as it happens. But he was so convinced that he started commuting war crimes of his own.
The photos ALREADY released make it very plain that Hamas were shooting babies in their cribs and children in their beds, and burning families alive
Meanwhile multiple independent journalists from respectable organisations are saying yes, the worst stories are true
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
Fair enough, but that is one state. Andz you two are arguing about government level policies. I just couldn't think of any other Arab states which qualified on both counts.
The Arab armies would have done very unpleasant things to the Jewish population, had they won, in 1947/8.
So, what can we do now, in the face of renewed conflict? We can start by standing up for the principle that no armies should do unpleasant things to any population. That’s going to be difficult to achieve, but UK policy has long stood for supporting a rules-based international order, including the prosecution of war criminals by international courts.
Israel can and must defend itself against Hamas’s attacks.
There is little that individuals here can do, but I suggest people here shouldn’t call for war crimes to be committed. Is that too much to ask of people?
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
"During the British Mandate, beginning in 1920, and in the early days after independence in 1932, well-educated Jews played an important role in civic life. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 [is that date correct??] were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy. Between 1924–1928, some Jews fled persecution in Russia, arriving in Iraq as refugees."
It seems that Arabs and Jews were living in relative harmony in Iraq until Zionism became a thing.
So long as the Jews didn’t get above themselves, they could have a life there.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
"During the British Mandate, beginning in 1920, and in the early days after independence in 1932, well-educated Jews played an important role in civic life. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 [is that date correct??] were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy. Between 1924–1928, some Jews fled persecution in Russia, arriving in Iraq as refugees."
It seems that Arabs and Jews were living in relative harmony in Iraq until Zionism became a thing.
Victim blaming as usual.
Hmmm lets analyse the situation.
1920s - Iraq is British controlled. Arabs and Jews live together.
There are reports and pictures of what look like children burnt to death in their beds. The sort of thing we saw in the Bosnian war.
Meanwhile in Britain children at Jewish schools in North London are being told not to wear any identifying badges or uniform jackets so as to minimise the risk of attack. And in Sydney demonstrators shout "gas the Jews'.
It is 2023.
And some people waving swastikas at yesterday’s pro-Palestine celebrations in London.
They are not exactly subtle.
That is horrible. I have great deal of sympathy for the suffering that the Palestinians have endured over the years, but some of their supporters make it bloody difficult sometimes.
"Protest or Power. That's why we changed our party."
A good line. Prepped for just such an occasion no doubt.
I have to say this particular protest group seems particularly barmy. Many people, me amongst them, are skeptical about citizen assemblies, but at least they are usually proposed to be about something specific. But to have a permanent one to tackle, essentially, everything, well then you really are just saying why even have elections at all.
Who gets to be on the citizen assembly? Anyone who wants to or would there be, er... elections?
Democratic lottery apparently. But I presume that means you cannot turn down a place, so unlike being an MP you really could not resign.
I'll be charitable and call it a bloody barmy idea, even if one thinks things like a Citizen Assembly to tackle specific issues are a good idea.
If the House of Commons is anything other than the citizen's assembly I have no idea what it could possibly be. If it is a not very good one then the voters have something to answer for.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
Fair enough, but that is one state. Andz you two are arguing about government level policies. I just couldn't think of any other Arab states which qualified on both counts.
The Arab armies would have done very unpleasant things to the Jewish population, had they won, in 1947/8.
So, what can we do now, in the face of renewed conflict? We can start by standing up for the principle that no armies should do unpleasant things to any population. That’s going to be difficult to achieve, but UK policy has long stood for supporting a rules-based international order, including the prosecution of war criminals by international courts.
Israel can and must defend itself against Hamas’s attacks.
There is little that individuals here can do, but I suggest people here shouldn’t call for war crimes to be committed. Is that too much to ask of people?
Yes, I would consider ethnic cleansing quite wrong, as it could only be achieved by mass murder.
"Protest or Power. That's why we changed our party."
A good line. Prepped for just such an occasion no doubt.
I have to say this particular protest group seems particularly barmy. Many people, me amongst them, are skeptical about citizen assemblies, but at least they are usually proposed to be about something specific. But to have a permanent one to tackle, essentially, everything, well then you really are just saying why even have elections at all.
Who gets to be on the citizen assembly? Anyone who wants to or would there be, er... elections?
Democratic lottery apparently. But I presume that means you cannot turn down a place, so unlike being an MP you really could not resign.
I'll be charitable and call it a bloody barmy idea, even if one thinks things like a Citizen Assembly to tackle specific issues are a good idea.
Can't we just offer up PB.com to run the country?
It wouldn't always be plain-sailing, there'd be disputes, sure, even resignations, but we'd surely do a lot better than the current mob?
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing. You look morally equivalent to me.
There are solutions that do not involve war crimes. Right now, Hamas don’t believe that and some in Israel don’t believe that, but let us hope there is a path forwards.
I'm not suggesting the Palestinians go into the sea, I'm suggesting they go into Egypt.
You don't see the difference there?
One is suggesting murder, the other moving people just a few miles into another part of the country they came from [Gaza was Egypt before Israel won it in a defensive war].
I would switch it round and make Gaza a part of Egypt.
The condition would be for Egypt to be in charge of the security situation. Which would be easier for fellow Arabs than it would be for Israel.
Independence for Palestine from Egypt can be kicked into the future for if and when they are able to have non-terrorists in charge.
If the Kurds aren't given a nation state, I see little reason why Palestine 'needs' to have one, particularly when a terrorist group has been in control of part of it for two decades.
We've just had this from Merseyside Police: "We can confirm that a 28-year-old man from Surrey has been arrested following an incident at the Labour Party conference earlier this afternoon.
"The man was detained by security at the event and handed over to the police who arrested him on suspicion of S39 assault, breach of the peace and causing public nuisance.
assault.....with a weapon of mass destruction that was a bag of glitter?
Doesn’t assault include giving someone a genuine reason to fear for their safety? Whilst no fan of SKS I would imagine a politician who is rushed on stage will have a genuine moment of fear that it could be a knife rather than glitter.
Especially as 2 MPs have been murdered in recent years and 1 severely injured.
"Protest or Power. That's why we changed our party."
A good line. Prepped for just such an occasion no doubt.
I have to say this particular protest group seems particularly barmy. Many people, me amongst them, are skeptical about citizen assemblies, but at least they are usually proposed to be about something specific. But to have a permanent one to tackle, essentially, everything, well then you really are just saying why even have elections at all.
Who gets to be on the citizen assembly? Anyone who wants to or would there be, er... elections?
Democratic lottery apparently. But I presume that means you cannot turn down a place, so unlike being an MP you really could not resign.
I'll be charitable and call it a bloody barmy idea, even if one thinks things like a Citizen Assembly to tackle specific issues are a good idea.
If the House of Commons is anything other than the citizen's assembly I have no idea what it could possibly be. If it is a not very good one then the voters have something to answer for.
I can never quite figure out the logic. The people choose the wrong representatives to be their MPs, so they cannot be trusted. But the people can be trusted to get things right, if we select representatives randomly.
Also, let's be honest, there are people out there who do want focused assemblies to work through options on a contentious issue, but if you are proposing in essence an alternative chamber, you just don't like who the people choose and what they do, and want another one to do what you want.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
"During the British Mandate, beginning in 1920, and in the early days after independence in 1932, well-educated Jews played an important role in civic life. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 [is that date correct??] were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy. Between 1924–1928, some Jews fled persecution in Russia, arriving in Iraq as refugees."
It seems that Arabs and Jews were living in relative harmony in Iraq until Zionism became a thing.
Victim blaming as usual.
Hmmm lets analyse the situation.
1920s - Iraq is British controlled. Arabs and Jews live together.
1932 - Iraq becomes independent.
1930s - Jews become persecuted.
1941 - Farhud Holocaust of Jews in Iraq.
1948 - Israel was founded.
Yeah, its all the "zionists" fault ... 🤦♂️
Don't be silly. Israel didn't suddenly pop into existence in 1948. There was a long lead up to its formation, during which time perceived injustices suffered by the Palestinians were a factor in the increased persecution of Jews in Iraq. I'm not saying that this persecution was justified in any way, but Zionism was certainly one of the reasons for it.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
They are not Egyptians.
If you advocated resettling at least a proportion in the UK as refugees then I might have some respect for that position.
These people that have happily supported Hamas? I'm sorry, but there is no way back. If you're Russian or Palestinian then you've had ample chance to not be part of the horror story.
I am not sure how an individual Palestinian living in Gaza has had "ample chance to not be part of the horror story".
Many will have supported Hamas (bad). Some will have supported Hamas because they see no alternative and no future (also bad but maybe understandable). Most will have kept their heads down and tried to get on with their lives as best they can (sad, maybe, but predictable).
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing. You look morally equivalent to me.
There are solutions that do not involve war crimes. Right now, Hamas don’t believe that and some in Israel don’t believe that, but let us hope there is a path forwards.
I'm not suggesting the Palestinians go into the sea, I'm suggesting they go into Egypt.
You don't see the difference there?
One is suggesting murder, the other moving people just a few miles into another part of the country they came from [Gaza was Egypt before Israel won it in a defensive war].
I would switch it round and make Gaza a part of Egypt.
The condition would be for Egypt to be in charge of the security situation. Which would be easier for fellow Arabs than it would be for Israel.
Independence for Palestine from Egypt can be kicked into the future for if and when they are able to have non-terrorists in charge.
If the Kurds aren't given a nation state, I see little reason why Palestine 'needs' to have one, particularly when a terrorist group has been in control of part of it for two decades.
That is maybe a solution. The Palestinians would have to accept they are never going back to Israel proper. No right of return
Israel would have to accept living alongside the people that did kfar aza
Not easy for either side. Not easy for Egypt
I think it’s more likely Israel is about to impose a brutal military “solution”
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
Fair enough, but that is one state. Andz you two are arguing about government level policies. I just couldn't think of any other Arab states which qualified on both counts.
The Arab armies would have done very unpleasant things to the Jewish population, had they won, in 1947/8.
So, what can we do now, in the face of renewed conflict? We can start by standing up for the principle that no armies should do unpleasant things to any population. That’s going to be difficult to achieve, but UK policy has long stood for supporting a rules-based international order, including the prosecution of war criminals by international courts.
Israel can and must defend itself against Hamas’s attacks.
There is little that individuals here can do, but I suggest people here shouldn’t call for war crimes to be committed. Is that too much to ask of people?
Yes, I would consider ethnic cleansing quite wrong, as it could only be achieved by mass murder.
I'd rather it be done peacefully and by agreement than by force.
EG use funds that we might give in International Aid or to the Military and let us say that everyone who moves from Israel to an Arab state gets $5000 paid to them, and $5000 to the state that agrees to take them.
How much would that cost? If everyone relocated that'd cost $20bn, which is less than the US has to spend on military aid to Israel in 7 years.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing. You look morally equivalent to me.
There are solutions that do not involve war crimes. Right now, Hamas don’t believe that and some in Israel don’t believe that, but let us hope there is a path forwards.
I'm not suggesting the Palestinians go into the sea, I'm suggesting they go into Egypt.
You don't see the difference there?
One is suggesting murder, the other moving people just a few miles into another part of the country they came from [Gaza was Egypt before Israel won it in a defensive war].
There was no general campaign of genocide in the 1948 war. The talk of driving people into the sea has been much debated by historians. Some dismiss it as wartime rhetoric, but if we take it more seriously, it was a proposition to expel Jews from Palestine, i.e. ethnic cleansing, i.e. the same as what you are now arguing for. Driving people out of their homes because of their ethnicity.
Serbia only wanted to move the Kosovar Albanians a few miles into Albania, but we still bombed Serbia to stop that happening. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. Pretending you’re only proposing a little ethnic cleansing is both laughable and offensive.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
They are not Egyptians.
If you advocated resettling at least a proportion in the UK as refugees then I might have some respect for that position.
These people that have happily supported Hamas? I'm sorry, but there is no way back. If you're Russian or Palestinian then you've had ample chance to not be part of the horror story.
I am not sure how an individual Palestinian living in Gaza has had "ample chance to not be part of the horror story".
Many will have supported Hamas (bad). Some will have supported Hamas because they see no alternative and no future (also bad but maybe understandable). Most will have kept their heads down and tried to get on with their lives as best they can (sad, maybe, but predictable).
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
"During the British Mandate, beginning in 1920, and in the early days after independence in 1932, well-educated Jews played an important role in civic life. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 [is that date correct??] were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy. Between 1924–1928, some Jews fled persecution in Russia, arriving in Iraq as refugees."
It seems that Arabs and Jews were living in relative harmony in Iraq until Zionism became a thing.
Victim blaming as usual.
Hmmm lets analyse the situation.
1920s - Iraq is British controlled. Arabs and Jews live together.
1932 - Iraq becomes independent.
1930s - Jews become persecuted.
1941 - Farhud Holocaust of Jews in Iraq.
1948 - Israel was founded.
Yeah, its all the "zionists" fault ... 🤦♂️
Don't be silly. Israel didn't suddenly pop into existence in 1948. There was a long lead up to its formation, during which time perceived injustices suffered by the Palestinians were a factor in the increased persecution of Jews in Iraq. I'm not saying that this persecution was justified in any way, but Zionism was certainly one of the reasons for it.
So "Zionism" away from Iraq is the reason Jews became persecuted in Iraq as soon as the British left and Iraq became independent.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
I've no real view on that, but if the populations of Gaza wishes to relocate to Egypt then that'd be a win.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
Fair enough, but that is one state. Andz you two are arguing about government level policies. I just couldn't think of any other Arab states which qualified on both counts.
The Arab armies would have done very unpleasant things to the Jewish population, had they won, in 1947/8.
So, what can we do now, in the face of renewed conflict? We can start by standing up for the principle that no armies should do unpleasant things to any population. That’s going to be difficult to achieve, but UK policy has long stood for supporting a rules-based international order, including the prosecution of war criminals by international courts.
Israel can and must defend itself against Hamas’s attacks.
There is little that individuals here can do, but I suggest people here shouldn’t call for war crimes to be committed. Is that too much to ask of people?
Clearly. The whole debate really brings the worst out of the two extremes. It really is why I try to avoid the whole topic.
Those who think, and it is very prevalent on Twitter not so here, the Palestinian action on Saturday and since is glorious and justified. It is not. It’s appalling. Quite a lot driven by anti semitism and the scenes outside the Israeli Embassy were shocking and embarrassing.
But also those who cannot contain their prejudice against Muslims/Palestinians. It is no coincidence Tommy Robinson and Nick Griffin are ardently pro Israel.
It is a small but rabid vocal minority on either side and they drown out any rational debate.
Vile people on both sides advocating the worst excesses against a people they don’t like and feel morally justified in doing so. Disgusting.
We need to differentiate between a forced ethnic cleansing at gunpoint, which is wrong and a war crime - and would kill 100,000s - and a voluntary relocation
If the Gazans AGREED to move to Sinai in return for peace and prosperity and massive subsidies from all parties - that would be entirely permissible
Holly Willoughby says she is quitting ITV show This Morning after 14 years “for me and my family”
A man is awaiting trial, charged with plotting to kidnap and murder Holly Willoughby, so you can see why she might be a bit shaken up even without the whole Schofield mess.
Utter and total bollox , a 36 stone saddo who could not leave the house. Made up mince. Fit cops better to investigate real crimes rather than pander to these numpty nobodies. Who gives a flying F*ck that this clown leaves a crappy TV show. They are cheeks of the same arse.
"Protest or Power. That's why we changed our party."
A good line. Prepped for just such an occasion no doubt.
I have to say this particular protest group seems particularly barmy. Many people, me amongst them, are skeptical about citizen assemblies, but at least they are usually proposed to be about something specific. But to have a permanent one to tackle, essentially, everything, well then you really are just saying why even have elections at all.
Who gets to be on the citizen assembly? Anyone who wants to or would there be, er... elections?
Democratic lottery apparently. But I presume that means you cannot turn down a place, so unlike being an MP you really could not resign.
I'll be charitable and call it a bloody barmy idea, even if one thinks things like a Citizen Assembly to tackle specific issues are a good idea.
Can't we just offer up PB.com to run the country?
It wouldn't always be plain-sailing, there'd be disputes, sure, even resignations, but we'd surely do a lot better than the current mob?
Scarily, I doubt it.
We'd never agree on a single policy.
I disagree.
Sorry, sometimes someone has to swing for the obvious ones.
We need to differentiate between a forced ethnic cleansing at gunpoint, which is wrong and a war crime - and would kill 100,000s - and a voluntary relocation
If the Gazans AGREED to move to Sinai in return for peace and prosperity and massive subsidies from all parties - that would be entirely permissible
That's what I'm advocating. Incentivise it, both to the Egyptians and the Palestinians.
End this long-running tragedy. It'd be better for the people currently trapped living in Gaza, it would be better for Israel, it would be better for everyone in the Middle East.
Better than the continuing bloodshed and mass murder of innocents Hamas currently does.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
"During the British Mandate, beginning in 1920, and in the early days after independence in 1932, well-educated Jews played an important role in civic life. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 [is that date correct??] were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy. Between 1924–1928, some Jews fled persecution in Russia, arriving in Iraq as refugees."
It seems that Arabs and Jews were living in relative harmony in Iraq until Zionism became a thing.
Victim blaming as usual.
Hmmm lets analyse the situation.
1920s - Iraq is British controlled. Arabs and Jews live together.
1932 - Iraq becomes independent.
1930s - Jews become persecuted.
1941 - Farhud Holocaust of Jews in Iraq.
1948 - Israel was founded.
Yeah, its all the "zionists" fault ... 🤦♂️
Don't be silly. Israel didn't suddenly pop into existence in 1948. There was a long lead up to its formation, during which time perceived injustices suffered by the Palestinians were a factor in the increased persecution of Jews in Iraq. I'm not saying that this persecution was justified in any way, but Zionism was certainly one of the reasons for it.
So "Zionism" away from Iraq is the reason Jews became persecuted in Iraq as soon as the British left and Iraq became independent.
Its a theory ...
Well that's basically what the Wiki paragraph in between the ones quoted by me and JJ says, so I guess it's not that outlandish a theory:
"Organized Zionist activity began in Iraq in the 1920s. The Jewish population was generally sympathetic toward the movement, although not at that time as a solution for Iraqi Jews.[43] The Zionist organization in Baghdad was initially granted a permit by the British, in March 1921, but in the following year, under the government of King Faisal I, was unable to renew it. Nevertheless, its activities were tolerated until 1929. In that year, after conflict and bloodshed in Palestine during anti-Zionist demonstrations, Zionist activities were banned and teachers from Palestine, who had taught Hebrew and Jewish history, were forced to leave."
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
I've no real view on that, but if the populations of Gaza wishes to relocate to Egypt then that'd be a win.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
They are not Egyptians.
If you advocated resettling at least a proportion in the UK as refugees then I might have some respect for that position.
These people that have happily supported Hamas? I'm sorry, but there is no way back. If you're Russian or Palestinian then you've had ample chance to not be part of the horror story.
I am not sure how an individual Palestinian living in Gaza has had "ample chance to not be part of the horror story".
Many will have supported Hamas (bad). Some will have supported Hamas because they see no alternative and no future (also bad but maybe understandable). Most will have kept their heads down and tried to get on with their lives as best they can (sad, maybe, but predictable).
Of course, but heads down is no real excuse.
None of us on here would opt for the easy (or rather easier) life, rather than antagonising the local warlords and protesting for peace - oh no, we're all far too principled for that.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
I've no real view on that, but if the populations of Gaza wishes to relocate to Egypt then that'd be a win.
Offer something not available to any other party leader at the moment it seems - charisma?
I know Boris sucked all the "charisma" out of politics during his term, but SURELY now he's left the stage, somebody could make a stab at something other than excrutiating dullness?
In an epically dull field, the LibDems have the dullest.
Anyway, tis a Saharan Dust night, so I'm off to the coast with some bright lights to see if it brings any interesting insects with it. Toodles....
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
I've no real view on that, but if the populations of Gaza wishes to relocate to Egypt then that'd be a win.
They don’t.
But they might if offered enough money
Or even the choice, let alone choice plus money.
Offer both - it's not like the Arab states can't afford it.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
Think about what you have just said. Really think about it. Yuck.
OK thought about it. Stand by it.
In a hierarchy of evil, which is more evil. Mass murdering and killing people? Or finding them somewhere else to live?
That is not the choice facing anyone.
Bullshit!
That is exactly the choice. This mass murder and killing is happening. Its been happening for decades.
Now does it get stopped, or does it continue? If it gets stopped, then how?
Relocating people who would have been Egyptian anyway had Israel not taken the land in a defensive war from Egypt, into elsewhere in Egypt, seems to me infinitely less evil than continuing this mass murder that is happening.
How does it get stopped? The same way we stopped terrorism in Northern Ireland, or in the Basque Country. Or how peace was brought to East Timor. Or how South Africa transitioned out of apartheid. Or how the war in Bosnia was brought to an end. It is very difficult, but the answer is not more war crimes.
We need to differentiate between a forced ethnic cleansing at gunpoint, which is wrong and a war crime - and would kill 100,000s - and a voluntary relocation
If the Gazans AGREED to move to Sinai in return for peace and prosperity and massive subsidies from all parties - that would be entirely permissible
Sinai isn't a place to live - if they want to go there, then fine. Much better though that they are relocated elsewhere - there is a lot of empty land, and the cost of fighting means that huge amounts could be assigned at a saving.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
I've no real view on that, but if the populations of Gaza wishes to relocate to Egypt then that'd be a win.
They don’t.
But they might if offered enough money
Or even the choice, let alone choice plus money.
Offer both - it's not like the Arab states can't afford it.
Exactly. And Europe, and America too.
What do you think of my proposal of eg $5k a head for anyone who moves, plus $5k a head for whatever state takes them too?
Stuff their face with gold and give people an opportunity to live a productive life in peace, rather than living under Hamas terrorists in squalor.
We need to differentiate between a forced ethnic cleansing at gunpoint, which is wrong and a war crime - and would kill 100,000s - and a voluntary relocation
If the Gazans AGREED to move to Sinai in return for peace and prosperity and massive subsidies from all parties - that would be entirely permissible
That's what I'm advocating. Incentivise it, both to the Egyptians and the Palestinians.
End this long-running tragedy. It'd be better for the people currently trapped living in Gaza, it would be better for Israel, it would be better for everyone in the Middle East.
Better than the continuing bloodshed and mass murder of innocents Hamas currently does.
Yes, and I agree with you. What is the point in Gazans living in their horrible open air prison for ANOTHER fifty years? It is now quite obvious they will never return to Israel, and after October 7 it is clear Israel will, at the very least, make their lives miserable in perpetuity, and never allow them to get inside Israel again. Israel wants them gone
We can bemoan this, but those are the facts on the ground, and they cannot be changed, in the real world
A new city down the coast in Sinai, giving them freedom, passports, prosperity, lives, careers, is surely preferable? If they agree to it? This is not some evil scheme to make their lives WORSE
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
They are not Egyptians.
If you advocated resettling at least a proportion in the UK as refugees then I might have some respect for that position.
These people that have happily supported Hamas? I'm sorry, but there is no way back. If you're Russian or Palestinian then you've had ample chance to not be part of the horror story.
I am not sure how an individual Palestinian living in Gaza has had "ample chance to not be part of the horror story".
Many will have supported Hamas (bad). Some will have supported Hamas because they see no alternative and no future (also bad but maybe understandable). Most will have kept their heads down and tried to get on with their lives as best they can (sad, maybe, but predictable).
Of course, but heads down is no real excuse.
Maybe it has to take a brutal brutal “defeat” to sort it out. There are inevitably a good portion of Palestinians who support Hamas because they agree with them, a good proportion who support them because they have had a shit old time of it from Israel in their experience and a good proportion who are understandably too terrified to stand up to Hamas and their fellow travellers.
After WW2 there were countless Germans who said that they never supported the Nazis but it probably was similar to Gaza in that some totally agreed, others thought Germany was in the shit because of others and so supported them without the full “beliefs” and the rest too scared to stand up to them.
It was only when Germany was shattered that the Germans had to face up to what they had done and enabled and that introspection after humiliation and the removal of the extremists from positions of power and authority was Germany able to become a peaceful anti-war society which then totally prospered once the idea of violence to achieve aims had gone and they realised that making things was a better route to soft power and respect.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing. You look morally equivalent to me.
There are solutions that do not involve war crimes. Right now, Hamas don’t believe that and some in Israel don’t believe that, but let us hope there is a path forwards.
I'm not suggesting the Palestinians go into the sea, I'm suggesting they go into Egypt.
You don't see the difference there?
One is suggesting murder, the other moving people just a few miles into another part of the country they came from [Gaza was Egypt before Israel won it in a defensive war].
There was no general campaign of genocide in the 1948 war. The talk of driving people into the sea has been much debated by historians. Some dismiss it as wartime rhetoric, but if we take it more seriously, it was a proposition to expel Jews from Palestine, i.e. ethnic cleansing, i.e. the same as what you are now arguing for. Driving people out of their homes because of their ethnicity.
Serbia only wanted to move the Kosovar Albanians a few miles into Albania, but we still bombed Serbia to stop that happening. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. Pretending you’re only proposing a little ethnic cleansing is both laughable and offensive.
That's a bit of a rewriting of history.
Serbia were engaging a campaign of murder, rapes, arson and severe maltreatment.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing. You look morally equivalent to me.
There are solutions that do not involve war crimes. Right now, Hamas don’t believe that and some in Israel don’t believe that, but let us hope there is a path forwards.
I'm not suggesting the Palestinians go into the sea, I'm suggesting they go into Egypt.
You don't see the difference there?
One is suggesting murder, the other moving people just a few miles into another part of the country they came from [Gaza was Egypt before Israel won it in a defensive war].
I would switch it round and make Gaza a part of Egypt.
The condition would be for Egypt to be in charge of the security situation. Which would be easier for fellow Arabs than it would be for Israel.
Independence for Palestine from Egypt can be kicked into the future for if and when they are able to have non-terrorists in charge.
If the Kurds aren't given a nation state, I see little reason why Palestine 'needs' to have one, particularly when a terrorist group has been in control of part of it for two decades.
A terrorist group has been in control of Gaza, but not the rest of Palestine, i.e. the West Bank.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
I've no real view on that, but if the populations of Gaza wishes to relocate to Egypt then that'd be a win.
They don’t.
But they might if offered enough money
I was as guilty as anyone of speculating about giving them all £1m each, and unlimited access to hookers, to bugger off to Sharm El-Sheikh the other day.
But what about the ones who say no? What about the ones who really think it’s their country?
What do we know about the end game now?
1) The two state solution has gone, at least for Gaza; 2) Therefore Gaza will become a wholly run Israeli colony; so 3) If money is to be spent then it should probably be inside Gaza. While Mossad does its thing, we and the Arabs can make it super conductor central. Dubai on the Med. Or something.
Holly Willoughby says she is quitting ITV show This Morning after 14 years “for me and my family”
A man is awaiting trial, charged with plotting to kidnap and murder Holly Willoughby, so you can see why she might be a bit shaken up even without the whole Schofield mess.
Utter and total bollox , a 36 stone saddo who could not leave the house. Made up mince. Fit cops better to investigate real crimes rather than pander to these numpty nobodies. Who gives a flying F*ck that this clown leaves a crappy TV show. They are cheeks of the same arse.
You have to admire his optimism though that he would be able to find a time when she wasn’t on holiday to be able to carry out his plan.
The LDs managed to squeeze 4 MPs out of 9.5% in 2019, though not even Orkney is as rock solid as it used to be. 5% and it might be the only one left though!
I do wonder how many the Tories might squeeze out of 15-20%, were that to be the outcome - they've had literally zero before, but I assume would hope to maintain a handful, but 25% only got them 6 so that may be tricky. Holding any may be a plus.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
Think about what you have just said. Really think about it. Yuck.
OK thought about it. Stand by it.
In a hierarchy of evil, which is more evil. Mass murdering and killing people? Or finding them somewhere else to live?
That is not the choice facing anyone.
Bullshit!
That is exactly the choice. This mass murder and killing is happening. Its been happening for decades.
Now does it get stopped, or does it continue? If it gets stopped, then how?
Relocating people who would have been Egyptian anyway had Israel not taken the land in a defensive war from Egypt, into elsewhere in Egypt, seems to me infinitely less evil than continuing this mass murder that is happening.
How does it get stopped? The same way we stopped terrorism in Northern Ireland, or in the Basque Country. Or how peace was brought to East Timor. Or how South Africa transitioned out of apartheid. Or how the war in Bosnia was brought to an end. It is very difficult, but the answer is not more war crimes.
Many of those conflicts were ended by one side being defeated militarily and accepting they'd lost and had to sue for peace.
So if you want that, how do you propose Hamas gets defeated, when that hasn't worked so far?
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing. You look morally equivalent to me.
There are solutions that do not involve war crimes. Right now, Hamas don’t believe that and some in Israel don’t believe that, but let us hope there is a path forwards.
I'm not suggesting the Palestinians go into the sea, I'm suggesting they go into Egypt.
You don't see the difference there?
One is suggesting murder, the other moving people just a few miles into another part of the country they came from [Gaza was Egypt before Israel won it in a defensive war].
I would switch it round and make Gaza a part of Egypt.
The condition would be for Egypt to be in charge of the security situation. Which would be easier for fellow Arabs than it would be for Israel.
Independence for Palestine from Egypt can be kicked into the future for if and when they are able to have non-terrorists in charge.
If the Kurds aren't given a nation state, I see little reason why Palestine 'needs' to have one, particularly when a terrorist group has been in control of part of it for two decades.
A terrorist group has been in control of Gaza, but not the rest of Palestine, i.e. the West Bank.
Which is perhaps why the discussion has been on Gaza and not the West Bank?
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
I've no real view on that, but if the populations of Gaza wishes to relocate to Egypt then that'd be a win.
They don’t.
But they might if offered enough money
Or even the choice, let alone choice plus money.
Offer both - it's not like the Arab states can't afford it.
Exactly. And Europe, and America too.
What do you think of my proposal of eg $5k a head for anyone who moves, plus $5k a head for whatever state takes them too?
Stuff their face with gold and give people an opportunity to live a productive life in peace, rather than living under Hamas terrorists in squalor.
Too little imo. Make it $50k per head and it might work. That won’t be cheap but what’s $200bn to the Saudis?
Some reasonable points from Jack Straw PM, which have even improved my opinion of him somewhat.
A mea culpa for Iraq, and a warning over incorrect responses to major attacks, such as 9-11. He went on to propound the undeniably correct view that Hamas's atrocities have given Israel global sympathy, and that if it continues to place two million people under siege, it will lose that sympathy, in a similar way to the mistakes made by the West after 9-11.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing. You look morally equivalent to me.
There are solutions that do not involve war crimes. Right now, Hamas don’t believe that and some in Israel don’t believe that, but let us hope there is a path forwards.
I'm not suggesting the Palestinians go into the sea, I'm suggesting they go into Egypt.
You don't see the difference there?
One is suggesting murder, the other moving people just a few miles into another part of the country they came from [Gaza was Egypt before Israel won it in a defensive war].
There was no general campaign of genocide in the 1948 war. The talk of driving people into the sea has been much debated by historians. Some dismiss it as wartime rhetoric, but if we take it more seriously, it was a proposition to expel Jews from Palestine, i.e. ethnic cleansing, i.e. the same as what you are now arguing for. Driving people out of their homes because of their ethnicity.
Serbia only wanted to move the Kosovar Albanians a few miles into Albania, but we still bombed Serbia to stop that happening. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. Pretending you’re only proposing a little ethnic cleansing is both laughable and offensive.
That's a bit of a rewriting of history.
Serbia were engaging a campaign of murder, rapes, arson and severe maltreatment.
That's not what I've suggested whatsoever.
Oh, yours would be a nice ethnic cleansing! I see.
She who has to be obeyed is a lifelong Conservative. However she listened intently to the speech this afternoon, unlike myself who was mowing the lawn, and was most impressed. She is very disappointed in the Tories and advised she will not be voting next time. I suspect she is not alone in this feeling, could we be heading for the lowest ever general election turnout?
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
Fair enough, but that is one state. Andz you two are arguing about government level policies. I just couldn't think of any other Arab states which qualified on both counts.
The Arab armies would have done very unpleasant things to the Jewish population, had they won, in 1947/8.
Iwas thinking of the very different situation i9n 1943, stuck on the specificity of that "80 years" - rather than "75" which is the more usual expression. Resolved now, anyway, thanks.
Far worse photos are now emerging. I shan't even link to them
I notice that the BBC are reporting that babies were killed, but again sanitising the actual quote / facts coming from Israeli officials and independent reporters who have been e.g.
"You see the babies, the mothers, the fathers, in their bedrooms, in their protection rooms and how the terrorist kills them," said Maj Gen Itai Veruv, as quoted by the Reuters news agency.
vs
i24 News - IDF commander told her that they had found the bodies of some 40 babies, some of whom had been beheaded.
Some reasonable points from Jack Straw PM, which have even improved my opinion of him, somewhat.
A mea culpa for Iraq, plus the undeniably correct view that Hamas's atrocities have given Israel global sympathy, and that if it continues to place two million people under siege, it will lose that sympathy.
It would be nice if the Arab League made a statement condemning what Hamas have done, make it clear that they can only help the Palestinians when they rid themselves of the cancer of Hamas and support Israel if they need to make themselves safe by any means. Would focus a few minds, remove the hope for breaking down rapprochement tween Israel and the Arab states and might just start a direction towards a solution.
Until the Arab countries all stand up together there will always be good reasons for other countries to interfere and prolong the agony. Saudi don’t need regional conflict when they are trying to build a football league.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
They are not Egyptians.
If you advocated resettling at least a proportion in the UK as refugees then I might have some respect for that position.
These people that have happily supported Hamas? I'm sorry, but there is no way back. If you're Russian or Palestinian then you've had ample chance to not be part of the horror story.
I am not sure how an individual Palestinian living in Gaza has had "ample chance to not be part of the horror story".
Many will have supported Hamas (bad). Some will have supported Hamas because they see no alternative and no future (also bad but maybe understandable). Most will have kept their heads down and tried to get on with their lives as best they can (sad, maybe, but predictable).
Of course, but heads down is no real excuse.
Maybe it has to take a brutal brutal “defeat” to sort it out. There are inevitably a good portion of Palestinians who support Hamas because they agree with them, a good proportion who support them because they have had a shit old time of it from Israel in their experience and a good proportion who are understandably too terrified to stand up to Hamas and their fellow travellers.
After WW2 there were countless Germans who said that they never supported the Nazis but it probably was similar to Gaza in that some totally agreed, others thought Germany was in the shit because of others and so supported them without the full “beliefs” and the rest too scared to stand up to them.
It was only when Germany was shattered that the Germans had to face up to what they had done and enabled and that introspection after humiliation and the removal of the extremists from positions of power and authority was Germany able to become a peaceful anti-war society which then totally prospered once the idea of violence to achieve aims had gone and they realised that making things was a better route to soft power and respect.
The brutal, brutal defeat hasn't been tried for a while. The Germans and the Japanese are still with us after all. Hamas, If they and their supporters happened to cease their existence I wouldn't mind too much.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing. You look morally equivalent to me.
There are solutions that do not involve war crimes. Right now, Hamas don’t believe that and some in Israel don’t believe that, but let us hope there is a path forwards.
I'm not suggesting the Palestinians go into the sea, I'm suggesting they go into Egypt.
You don't see the difference there?
One is suggesting murder, the other moving people just a few miles into another part of the country they came from [Gaza was Egypt before Israel won it in a defensive war].
There was no general campaign of genocide in the 1948 war. The talk of driving people into the sea has been much debated by historians. Some dismiss it as wartime rhetoric, but if we take it more seriously, it was a proposition to expel Jews from Palestine, i.e. ethnic cleansing, i.e. the same as what you are now arguing for. Driving people out of their homes because of their ethnicity.
Serbia only wanted to move the Kosovar Albanians a few miles into Albania, but we still bombed Serbia to stop that happening. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. Pretending you’re only proposing a little ethnic cleansing is both laughable and offensive.
That's a bit of a rewriting of history.
Serbia were engaging a campaign of murder, rapes, arson and severe maltreatment.
That's not what I've suggested whatsoever.
Oh, yours would be a nice ethnic cleansing! I see.
Yes.
Give people a choice.
You can stay in a warzone where there is no bright future and there will be fighting against Hamas until it is defeated, or you can start a life in peace in a new city and we will give you money to emigrate and get your life started.
How many people take up the offer.
Anyone who stays behind, I'm not suggesting they be gunned down. But if they continue fighting, they should be shot, that is war.
No, that wasn't the story that headed the bulletin immediately after Starmer's speech. The story was Rishi offering aid to Israel after the events of this weekend. Starmer's speech was second and it referenced the glitter incident first.
She who has to be obeyed is a lifelong Conservative. However she listened intently to the speech this afternoon, unlike myself who was mowing the lawn, and was most impressed. She is very disappointed in the Tories and advised she will not be voting next time. I suspect she is not alone in this feeling, could we be heading for the lowest ever general election turnout?
Most impressed, you say? But obviously not impressed enough to vote for SKS?
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
Think about what you have just said. Really think about it. Yuck.
OK thought about it. Stand by it.
In a hierarchy of evil, which is more evil. Mass murdering and killing people? Or finding them somewhere else to live?
That is not the choice facing anyone.
Bullshit!
That is exactly the choice. This mass murder and killing is happening. Its been happening for decades.
Now does it get stopped, or does it continue? If it gets stopped, then how?
Relocating people who would have been Egyptian anyway had Israel not taken the land in a defensive war from Egypt, into elsewhere in Egypt, seems to me infinitely less evil than continuing this mass murder that is happening.
How does it get stopped? The same way we stopped terrorism in Northern Ireland, or in the Basque Country. Or how peace was brought to East Timor. Or how South Africa transitioned out of apartheid. Or how the war in Bosnia was brought to an end. It is very difficult, but the answer is not more war crimes.
Many of those conflicts were ended by one side being defeated militarily and accepting they'd lost and had to sue for peace.
So if you want that, how do you propose Hamas gets defeated, when that hasn't worked so far?
I support Israeli military action to defeat Hamas.
In Northern Ireland, to pick the closest example to our home, we sought to defeat the IRA and other Republican groups with our security forces. At the same time, we recognised the iniquitous treatment of Catholics in N Ireland and sought to change that state of affairs. We eventually negotiated with the IRA, even while the IRA denied the right of N Ireland to exist.
Israel/Palestine is not the same, but the situation in region has been more peaceful in the past, and closer to finding a lasting solution. It is possible for all sides to take steps towards peace. I don’t expect that to happen overnight. (I expect the IDF to get its act together and squash Hamas militarily.)
But I do know that armchair warriors on PB calling for war crimes to be committed should shut up.
I’m not sure Israel will move toward anything remotely like a two state solution after stuff like this. There’s just no coming back from those levels of depravity
Yet people will probably still head off on their pro Palestinian marches tonight, and think nothing of it
"Two states" has always been a bit of a misnomer. There are 18 states in the Middle East alone.
After this, Palestinians ought to be able to find a home in 17 of them.
The idea that Israel should continue to host Palestinians is preposterous, its time for anyone who doesn't want to live in Gaza peacefully with Israel to get the hell out of Israel.
You continue to describe ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, something recognised to be one of the most evil acts possible in the world. The UK has taken up arms to stop ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the world.
🤷♂️
Killings are much more evil. Burning people alive is much more evil. Decapitating people is much more evil.
Ethnic cleansing has been a reality across much of the world time and time again.
What did we do when the Germanys were expelled from Eastern Europe?
What did we do when the Jews were expelled from Iraq? Or Egypt? Or Iran? Or ....
There should be no killings, but relocations? It might be the least worst solution to all this.
I think what you're saying is quite wrong - ethnic accommodation has been the rule.
Accommodation for Arabs living in Gaza could be found in any of the ~17 Arab nation states then.
Clearly I had nothing to do with housing in mind.
Its not clear what you had in mind.
The land Israel controls is the only homeland for Jews on the planet, who have been persecuted and executed and annihilated by others across the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere. Its security comes first, before any other considerations.
If that's not possible with Palestinians living there, then the Palestinians need to go. Simple as. They are Arabs and there are plenty of other homelands for Arabs, there are no other homelands for Jews.
And the only reason a state called Palestine doesn't exist is because the Arab states rejected it, not because Israel did. Israel agreed with partition.
So the Arab states need to take responsibility for their own actions, and take in the Arab people who are currently without a state to live in.
What I had in mind was: Accommodation - a diplomatic agreement.
Yes, and I've said ideally an agreement should be reached with Egypt to take the ex-Egyptian populace who currently lives in Gaza.
I've no real view on that, but if the populations of Gaza wishes to relocate to Egypt then that'd be a win.
They don’t.
But they might if offered enough money
Or even the choice, let alone choice plus money.
Offer both - it's not like the Arab states can't afford it.
Exactly. And Europe, and America too.
What do you think of my proposal of eg $5k a head for anyone who moves, plus $5k a head for whatever state takes them too?
Stuff their face with gold and give people an opportunity to live a productive life in peace, rather than living under Hamas terrorists in squalor.
Too little imo. Make it $50k per head and it might work. That won’t be cheap but what’s $200bn to the Saudis?
$50k sounds like what you'd need to offer a westerner, not someone stuck in a warzone to go somewhere safe.
But either way, seems like we can agree on the principle and now its just haggling over the price. So why not give it a go? End a long running cancer in international relations, it'd be far cheaper in the long run.
Isn’t he being sarcastic? Mocking posters who cheerlead for Sunak? It seems obvious to me, I didn’t say so because I thought everyone knew
@Anabobazina has referenced a story which was not the one I was referring to. The first story immediately after Starmer's speech was Rishi providing aid and assistance to Israel. My point was merely, Starmer's relevance is such, that immediately after his keynote speech Starmer couldn't make the first story in the bulletin.
Where in Starmer's speech did he mention the homeless or the chronically poor? He didn't because they don't vote.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
Irrespective of their policies, I'm puzzled by the notion of Arab national governments in 1943. Most of the ME was under UK or French admin/military occupation (or something very like it in the case of Egypt).
That seems a slightly odd point to make. The main point is that Jews were persecuted in the ME well before 1948. As an example from Iraq:
"In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq deteriorated. Previously, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs,[44] but these views changed with the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate and the introduction of Nazi propaganda.[45] Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and anti-Jewish actions. In September 1934, following the appointment of Arshad al-Umari as the new minister of economics and communications, tens of Jews were dismissed from their posts in that ministry; and, subsequently, there were unofficial quotas of Jews that could be appointed in the civil service or admitted to secondary schools and colleges.[46] Zionist activity had continued covertly even after 1929, but in 1935 the last two Palestinian Jewish teachers were deported, and the president of the Zionist organization was put on trial and ultimately required to leave the country.[47]"
"During the British Mandate, beginning in 1920, and in the early days after independence in 1932, well-educated Jews played an important role in civic life. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 [is that date correct??] were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy. Between 1924–1928, some Jews fled persecution in Russia, arriving in Iraq as refugees."
It seems that Arabs and Jews were living in relative harmony in Iraq until Zionism became a thing.
Ahem. Read more of the articles, and others about the experience of Jews in the ME. If you want to take Zionism out of it, then look pre-1900. I provided some links yesterday. The idea they were living in 'relative harmony' is being blind to anti-Semitism.
Zionism did not start because evil Jews wanted to subjugate a people. It is because the lived experience of Jews for Millenia was of subjugation and of victimisation. If you want Europe, then witness the Dreyfuss mess and the Russian progroms.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
Think about what you have just said. Really think about it. Yuck.
OK thought about it. Stand by it.
In a hierarchy of evil, which is more evil. Mass murdering and killing people? Or finding them somewhere else to live?
That is not the choice facing anyone.
Bullshit!
That is exactly the choice. This mass murder and killing is happening. Its been happening for decades.
Now does it get stopped, or does it continue? If it gets stopped, then how?
Relocating people who would have been Egyptian anyway had Israel not taken the land in a defensive war from Egypt, into elsewhere in Egypt, seems to me infinitely less evil than continuing this mass murder that is happening.
How does it get stopped? The same way we stopped terrorism in Northern Ireland, or in the Basque Country. Or how peace was brought to East Timor. Or how South Africa transitioned out of apartheid. Or how the war in Bosnia was brought to an end. It is very difficult, but the answer is not more war crimes.
Many of those conflicts were ended by one side being defeated militarily and accepting they'd lost and had to sue for peace.
So if you want that, how do you propose Hamas gets defeated, when that hasn't worked so far?
I support Israeli military action to defeat Hamas.
In Northern Ireland, to pick the closest example to our home, we sought to defeat the IRA and other Republican groups with our security forces. At the same time, we recognised the iniquitous treatment of Catholics in N Ireland and sought to change that state of affairs. We eventually negotiated with the IRA, even while the IRA denied the right of N Ireland to exist.
Israel/Palestine is not the same, but the situation in region has been more peaceful in the past, and closer to finding a lasting solution. It is possible for all sides to take steps towards peace. I don’t expect that to happen overnight. (I expect the IDF to get its act together and squash Hamas militarily.)
But I do know that armchair warriors on PB calling for war crimes to be committed should shut up.
I think a key difference with NI/Gaza is that during the troubles France, Germany, ROI and the US hadn’t been actively and politically supporting the IRA apart from a few cocks in the US and wanting the UK wiped off the map and handed over to someone else.
Israel has lived with its neighbours wanting it, and the Jews destroyed since their existence as a state which might make it slightly understandable that they feel the need to take very extreme actions to protect themselves. Not actively committing war crimes but inevitably there will be a lot of innocent civilians killed - as in all conflict.
It's surprising how well it has aged; it could probably be broadcast nowadays. Just people being silly whilst talking about nothing of substance. Not trying to be edgy, or get headlines. Just being funny.
Isn’t he being sarcastic? Mocking posters who cheerlead for Sunak? It seems obvious to me, I didn’t say so because I thought everyone knew
@Anabobazina has referenced a story which was not the one I was referring to. The first story immediately after Starmer's speech was Rishi providing aid and assistance to Israel. My point was merely, Starmer's relevance is such, that immediately after his keynote speech Starmer couldn't make the first story in the bulletin.
Where in Starmer's speech did he mention the homeless or the chronically poor? He didn't because they don't vote.
So is @Isam right and you are being ironic, or not? I'm now completely lost.
It seems Starmer's speech has been well received and you would expect a personal bounce from it
I have no doubt he is heading into no 10 but not sure of his majority but it will be a working one
The conservatives need to go into opposition and decide what they stand for and it will depend just who has been elected
I am politically homeless but it is hardly an issue at my time of life when taking my pills and being with my family is paramount and why I pray for all those families suffering under pure evil in Israel and Gaza
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
You think Palestinian and Jew cannot live together, so the Palestinians should be expelled from an area. I presume you were quoting Azzam Pasha about “driving the Jews into the sea”. He thought Palestinian and Jew could not live together, so the Jews should be expelled from an area. You both describe ethnic cleansing.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
Think about what you have just said. Really think about it. Yuck.
OK thought about it. Stand by it.
In a hierarchy of evil, which is more evil. Mass murdering and killing people? Or finding them somewhere else to live?
That is not the choice facing anyone.
Bullshit!
That is exactly the choice. This mass murder and killing is happening. Its been happening for decades.
Now does it get stopped, or does it continue? If it gets stopped, then how?
Relocating people who would have been Egyptian anyway had Israel not taken the land in a defensive war from Egypt, into elsewhere in Egypt, seems to me infinitely less evil than continuing this mass murder that is happening.
How does it get stopped? The same way we stopped terrorism in Northern Ireland, or in the Basque Country. Or how peace was brought to East Timor. Or how South Africa transitioned out of apartheid. Or how the war in Bosnia was brought to an end. It is very difficult, but the answer is not more war crimes.
Many of those conflicts were ended by one side being defeated militarily and accepting they'd lost and had to sue for peace.
So if you want that, how do you propose Hamas gets defeated, when that hasn't worked so far?
Was the IRA defeated militarily? Did the South African state lose? Trying to defeat a group of people militarily tends to keep the conflict going. I think it's more likely that the factors you need are:
1. Foreign backers changing their minds 2. Weariness amongst the combatants 3. Leaders who want to negotiate.
One theory about why this is happening now is the Saudi/US peace plan and Iran's opposition to it. It's difficult to see any quick change for the better.
"Revealed: Protester, 28, who dumped glitter over Keir Starmer is globe-trotting XR activist from Surrey who describes himself 'as a little bit of a weird one'" - Mail
Some good points from Frank Gardner on "X". The Israelis already said they were going to deal with Hamas once and for all in 2014, and the result was just 2000 dead Palestinians, and, because so much of the population are children, a whole new generation of even more radicalised fighters.
He says Hamas is now as a result about 30,000 -strong, and they know every tunnel and bunker far better than the Israelis ever will. It's just decades of pointless madness, with sick leadership on the Palestinian and Israeli sides indulged and worsened by cheerleaders outside their borders who should know better.
It's surprising how well it has aged; it could probably be broadcast nowadays. Just people being silly whilst talking about nothing of substance. Not trying to be edgy, or get headlines. Just being funny.
I wish they'd use that old stuff on R4 during the night instead of the misery-porn that constitutes the World Service these days.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
Don't worry, the babies were obviously all Zionists, and therefore justifiably killed. And it's all our fault anyway.
(/sarcasm)
Hamas have just harmed the Palestinian cause for years. Not that they care...
This comment seems apposite, though some might substitute 'Hamas' for the second use of Palestinian, on the basis of multiple different causes in the region, so harming their cause in certain areas, such as the West, probably doesn't show up on their radar.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if Hamas had recruited a lot of ISIS fighters who were grim to begin with and over time have lost any humanity.
Some good points from Frank Gardner on "X". The Israelis already said they were going to deal with Hamas once and for all in 2014, and the result was just 2000 dead Palestinians, and, because so much of the population are children, a whole new generation of fighters.
He says Hamas is now as a result about 30,000 -strong, and they know every tunnel and bunker far better than the Israelis ever will. It's just decades of pointless madness, with sick leadership on the Palestinian and Israeli sides indulged and lionised by cheerleaders outside their borders who should know better.
Agreed those lionising terrorism by Hamas should hang their heads in shame.
If that's the case, then Israel should aim to kill tens of thousands of legitimate targets. A shame of the thousands more innocent casualties who might be caught in the crossfire, but Hamas need to be defeated and destroyed.
If anyone wants to get refuge away from the conflict, that should of course be encouraged and catered for.
So when are we making this offer of cash to the Palestinians if they drop their self-determination claims and move elsewhere? Is it before or after a punishment beating?
Comments
If you advocated resettling at least a proportion in the UK as refugees then I might have some respect for that position.
That is exactly the choice. This mass murder and killing is happening. Its been happening for decades.
Now does it get stopped, or does it continue? If it gets stopped, then how?
Relocating people who would have been Egyptian anyway had Israel not taken the land in a defensive war from Egypt, into elsewhere in Egypt, seems to me infinitely less evil than continuing this mass murder that is happening.
Stick to Matt. Still available free on TwiX.
A familiar feature of stories about war crimes is that they are often provoked by atrocity stories. These are in turn often created by misunderstanding the effects that fire, high explosives and animal depredations have on corpses.
Breaker Morant was convinced that local Boer resistance was committing various atrocities - they weren’t, as it happens. But he was so convinced that he started commuting war crimes of his own.
The land was Egypt before it was taken by Israel in a defensive war. Were they not Egyptians when that happened?
Egypt should take some responsibility for its own actions.
"During the British Mandate, beginning in 1920, and in the early days after independence in 1932, well-educated Jews played an important role in civic life. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 [is that date correct??] were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy. Between 1924–1928, some Jews fled persecution in Russia, arriving in Iraq as refugees."
It seems that Arabs and Jews were living in relative harmony in Iraq until Zionism became a thing.
They are not exactly subtle.
Meanwhile multiple independent journalists from respectable organisations are saying yes, the worst stories are true
So, what can we do now, in the face of renewed conflict? We can start by standing up for the principle that no armies should do unpleasant things to any population. That’s going to be difficult to achieve, but UK policy has long stood for supporting a rules-based international order, including the prosecution of war criminals by international courts.
Israel can and must defend itself against Hamas’s attacks.
There is little that individuals here can do, but I suggest people here shouldn’t call for war crimes to be committed. Is that too much to ask of people?
Hmmm lets analyse the situation.
1920s - Iraq is British controlled. Arabs and Jews live together.
1932 - Iraq becomes independent.
1930s - Jews become persecuted.
1941 - Farhud Holocaust of Jews in Iraq.
1948 - Israel was founded.
Yeah, its all the "zionists" fault ... 🤦♂️
Westminster Voting Intention (Scotland):
SNP: 33% (-5)
LAB: 32% (+5)
CON: 20% (+4)
LDM: 5% (-2)
GRN: 5% (-1)
REF: 2% (-2)
Via @YouGov, On 2-6 October,
Changes w/ 8-13 September.
https://nitter.net/electpoliticsuk/status/1711696303611072515#m
The condition would be for Egypt to be in charge of the security situation. Which would be easier for fellow Arabs than it would be for Israel.
Independence for Palestine from Egypt can be kicked into the future for if and when they are able to have non-terrorists in charge.
If the Kurds aren't given a nation state, I see little reason why Palestine 'needs' to have one, particularly when a terrorist group has been in control of part of it for two decades.
Also, let's be honest, there are people out there who do want focused assemblies to work through options on a contentious issue, but if you are proposing in essence an alternative chamber, you just don't like who the people choose and what they do, and want another one to do what you want.
Many will have supported Hamas (bad). Some will have supported Hamas because they see no alternative and no future (also bad but maybe understandable). Most will have kept their heads down and tried to get on with their lives as best they can (sad, maybe, but predictable).
Israel would have to accept living alongside the people that did kfar aza
Not easy for either side. Not easy for Egypt
I think it’s more likely Israel is about to impose a brutal military “solution”
EG use funds that we might give in International Aid or to the Military and let us say that everyone who moves from Israel to an Arab state gets $5000 paid to them, and $5000 to the state that agrees to take them.
How much would that cost? If everyone relocated that'd cost $20bn, which is less than the US has to spend on military aid to Israel in 7 years.
Serbia only wanted to move the Kosovar Albanians a few miles into Albania, but we still bombed Serbia to stop that happening. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. Pretending you’re only proposing a little ethnic cleansing is both laughable and offensive.
Its a theory ...
Those who think, and it is very prevalent on Twitter not so here, the Palestinian action on Saturday and since is glorious and justified. It is not. It’s appalling. Quite a lot driven by anti semitism and the scenes outside the Israeli Embassy were shocking and embarrassing.
But also those who cannot contain their prejudice against Muslims/Palestinians. It is no coincidence Tommy Robinson and Nick Griffin are ardently pro Israel.
It is a small but rabid vocal minority on either side and they drown out any rational debate.
Vile people on both sides advocating the worst excesses against a people they don’t like and feel morally justified in doing so. Disgusting.
If the Gazans AGREED to move to Sinai in return for peace and prosperity and massive subsidies from all parties - that would be entirely permissible
Sorry, sometimes someone has to swing for the obvious ones.
End this long-running tragedy. It'd be better for the people currently trapped living in Gaza, it would be better for Israel, it would be better for everyone in the Middle East.
Better than the continuing bloodshed and mass murder of innocents Hamas currently does.
"Organized Zionist activity began in Iraq in the 1920s. The Jewish population was generally sympathetic toward the movement, although not at that time as a solution for Iraqi Jews.[43] The Zionist organization in Baghdad was initially granted a permit by the British, in March 1921, but in the following year, under the government of King Faisal I, was unable to renew it. Nevertheless, its activities were tolerated until 1929. In that year, after conflict and bloodshed in Palestine during anti-Zionist demonstrations, Zionist activities were banned and teachers from Palestine, who had taught Hebrew and Jewish history, were forced to leave."
I know Boris sucked all the "charisma" out of politics during his term, but SURELY now he's left the stage, somebody could make a stab at something other than excrutiating dullness?
In an epically dull field, the LibDems have the dullest.
Anyway, tis a Saharan Dust night, so I'm off to the coast with some bright lights to see if it brings any interesting insects with it. Toodles....
What do you think of my proposal of eg $5k a head for anyone who moves, plus $5k a head for whatever state takes them too?
Stuff their face with gold and give people an opportunity to live a productive life in peace, rather than living under Hamas terrorists in squalor.
We can bemoan this, but those are the facts on the ground, and they cannot be changed, in the real world
A new city down the coast in Sinai, giving them freedom, passports, prosperity, lives, careers, is surely preferable? If they agree to it? This is not some evil scheme to make their lives WORSE
After WW2 there were countless Germans who said that they never supported the Nazis but it probably was similar to Gaza in that some totally agreed, others thought Germany was in the shit because of others and so supported them without the full “beliefs” and the rest too scared to stand up to them.
It was only when Germany was shattered that the Germans had to face up to what they had done and enabled and that introspection after humiliation and the removal of the extremists from positions of power and authority was Germany able to become a peaceful anti-war society which then totally prospered once the idea of violence to achieve aims had gone and they realised that making things was a better route to soft power and respect.
Serbia were engaging a campaign of murder, rapes, arson and severe maltreatment.
That's not what I've suggested whatsoever.
But what about the ones who say no? What about the ones who really think it’s their country?
What do we know about the end game now?
1) The two state solution has gone, at least for Gaza;
2) Therefore Gaza will become a wholly run Israeli colony; so
3) If money is to be spent then it should probably be inside Gaza. While Mossad does its thing, we and the Arabs can make it super conductor central. Dubai on the Med. Or something.
I do wonder how many the Tories might squeeze out of 15-20%, were that to be the outcome - they've had literally zero before, but I assume would hope to maintain a handful, but 25% only got them 6 so that may be tricky. Holding any may be a plus.
So if you want that, how do you propose Hamas gets defeated, when that hasn't worked so far?
A mea culpa for Iraq, and a warning over incorrect responses to major attacks, such as 9-11. He went on to propound the undeniably correct view that Hamas's atrocities have given Israel global sympathy, and that if it continues to place two million people under siege, it will lose that sympathy, in a similar way to the mistakes made by the West after 9-11.
There are no bodies, but it is hideously obvious what happened here. Click at your discretion
https://x.com/ALBERTORRO4/status/1711786720453107864?s=20
Far worse photos are now emerging. I shan't even link to them
"You see the babies, the mothers, the fathers, in their bedrooms, in their protection rooms and how the terrorist kills them," said Maj Gen Itai Veruv, as quoted by the Reuters news agency.
vs
i24 News - IDF commander told her that they had found the bodies of some 40 babies, some of whom had been beheaded.
Until the Arab countries all stand up together there will always be good reasons for other countries to interfere and prolong the agony. Saudi don’t need regional conflict when they are trying to build a football league.
Give people a choice.
You can stay in a warzone where there is no bright future and there will be fighting against Hamas until it is defeated, or you can start a life in peace in a new city and we will give you money to emigrate and get your life started.
How many people take up the offer.
Anyone who stays behind, I'm not suggesting they be gunned down. But if they continue fighting, they should be shot, that is war.
Many of them are senior foreign editors. I do not believe they are all lying
In Northern Ireland, to pick the closest example to our home, we sought to defeat the IRA and other Republican groups with our security forces. At the same time, we recognised the iniquitous treatment of Catholics in N Ireland and sought to change that state of affairs. We eventually negotiated with the IRA, even while the IRA denied the right of N Ireland to exist.
Israel/Palestine is not the same, but the situation in region has been more peaceful in the past, and closer to finding a lasting solution. It is possible for all sides to take steps towards peace. I don’t expect that to happen overnight. (I expect the IDF to get its act together and squash Hamas militarily.)
But I do know that armchair warriors on PB calling for war crimes to be committed should shut up.
But either way, seems like we can agree on the principle and now its just haggling over the price. So why not give it a go? End a long running cancer in international relations, it'd be far cheaper in the long run.
bulletin.
Where in Starmer's speech did he mention the homeless or the chronically poor? He didn't because they don't vote.
Zionism did not start because evil Jews wanted to subjugate a people. It is because the lived experience of Jews for Millenia was of subjugation and of victimisation. If you want Europe, then witness the Dreyfuss mess and the Russian progroms.
Israel has lived with its neighbours wanting it, and the Jews destroyed since their existence as a state which might make it slightly understandable that they feel the need to take very extreme actions to protect themselves. Not actively committing war crimes but inevitably there will be a lot of innocent civilians killed - as in all conflict.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIZYUVwJUk
It's surprising how well it has aged; it could probably be broadcast nowadays. Just people being silly whilst talking about nothing of substance. Not trying to be edgy, or get headlines. Just being funny.
That's as silly as suggesting that anyone who buys something a DVD at full price should be annoyed when the DVD goes into the bargain bin.
It seems Starmer's speech has been well received and you would expect a personal bounce from it
I have no doubt he is heading into no 10 but not sure of his majority but it will be a working one
The conservatives need to go into opposition and decide what they stand for and it will depend just who has been elected
I am politically homeless but it is hardly an issue at my time of life when taking my pills and being with my family is paramount and why I pray for all those families suffering under pure evil in Israel and Gaza
I think it's more likely that the factors you need are:
1. Foreign backers changing their minds
2. Weariness amongst the combatants
3. Leaders who want to negotiate.
One theory about why this is happening now is the Saudi/US peace plan and Iran's opposition to it.
It's difficult to see any quick change for the better.
(/sarcasm)
Hamas have just harmed the Palestinian cause for years. Not that they care...
"Revealed: Protester, 28, who dumped glitter over Keir Starmer is globe-trotting XR activist from Surrey who describes himself 'as a little bit of a weird one'" - Mail
He says Hamas is now as a result about 30,000 -strong, and they know every tunnel and bunker far better than the Israelis ever will. It's just decades of pointless madness, with sick leadership on the Palestinian and Israeli sides indulged and worsened by cheerleaders outside their borders who should know better.
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
There is an enormous gap between what Westerners think the Palestinian cause is and what Palestinians think the Palestinian cause is.
https://nitter.net/paulrubens/status/1711433768379052039#m
A bit like all those 'both sides' and 'NATO encroachment' fools ignoring what Russia openly says about its goals in Ukraine and why it is doing it.
If that's the case, then Israel should aim to kill tens of thousands of legitimate targets. A shame of the thousands more innocent casualties who might be caught in the crossfire, but Hamas need to be defeated and destroyed.
If anyone wants to get refuge away from the conflict, that should of course be encouraged and catered for.