Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
Your problem is that the Israelis are about to do that to the Palestinians. Drive them into the Med.
It doesn't matter whether that's fair or karma or "their fault". It's understandable, sure, but will always remain a bloodbath instigated by Israel.
This isn't to say I'm not as hawkish on this as others. I'd want Israel to go after Iran in response, rather than a full ground invasion of Gaza.
I don't want to see a bloodbath, I want to see safe haven offered by Arab states so that the Arabs living in Gaza can find safety and security.
If the Arab states won't allow their brethren in and it results in a bloodbath when Israel entirely legitimately seeks to destroy Hamas, then why do you think they're acting that way?
This is the same silly wriggle as yesterday.
Do you still support a ground invasion even if there are no escape routes for civilians?
Of course.
Its on other states to provide escape routes. They can't veto Israel's entirely legitimate self-defence and destruction of Hamas by blockading escape routes.
Right, so you're pro-bloodbath.
I'm pro destruction of Hamas.
I want to avoid a bloodbath, but not at the cost of allowing Hamas to exist.
Would support strikes on Iran (if feasible), instead of a ground invasion of Gaza?
That's where Hamas get their funding and arms from.
If feasible to invade Iran and Gaza then both should be done, but realistically only one is feasible.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
Your problem is that the Israelis are about to do that to the Palestinians. Drive them into the Med.
It doesn't matter whether that's fair or karma or "their fault". It's understandable, sure, but will always remain a bloodbath instigated by Israel.
This isn't to say I'm not as hawkish on this as others. I'd want Israel to go after Iran in response, rather than a full ground invasion of Gaza.
I don't want to see a bloodbath, I want to see safe haven offered by Arab states so that the Arabs living in Gaza can find safety and security.
If the Arab states won't allow their brethren in and it results in a bloodbath when Israel entirely legitimately seeks to destroy Hamas, then why do you think they're acting that way?
This is the same silly wriggle as yesterday.
Do you still support a ground invasion even if there are no escape routes for civilians?
Of course.
Its on other states to provide escape routes. They can't veto Israel's entirely legitimate self-defence and destruction of Hamas by blockading escape routes.
Right, so you're pro-bloodbath.
I'm pro destruction of Hamas.
I want to avoid a bloodbath, but not at the cost of allowing Hamas to exist.
Would support strikes on Iran (if feasible), instead of a ground invasion of Gaza?
That's where Hamas get their funding and arms from.
If feasible to invade Iran and Gaza then both should be done, but realistically only one is feasible.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
How does Israel benefit from incorporating people who are hostile to it?
Land-grabbing, for its own sake, is the stupidest of policies.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
Your problem is that the Israelis are about to do that to the Palestinians. Drive them into the Med.
It doesn't matter whether that's fair or karma or "their fault". It's understandable, sure, but will always remain a bloodbath instigated by Israel.
This isn't to say I'm not as hawkish on this as others. I'd want Israel to go after Iran in response, rather than a full ground invasion of Gaza.
I don't want to see a bloodbath, I want to see safe haven offered by Arab states so that the Arabs living in Gaza can find safety and security.
If the Arab states won't allow their brethren in and it results in a bloodbath when Israel entirely legitimately seeks to destroy Hamas, then why do you think they're acting that way?
This is the same silly wriggle as yesterday.
Do you still support a ground invasion even if there are no escape routes for civilians?
Of course.
Its on other states to provide escape routes. They can't veto Israel's entirely legitimate self-defence and destruction of Hamas by blockading escape routes.
Right, so you're pro-bloodbath.
I'm pro destruction of Hamas.
I want to avoid a bloodbath, but not at the cost of allowing Hamas to exist.
Would support strikes on Iran (if feasible), instead of a ground invasion of Gaza?
That's where Hamas get their funding and arms from.
If feasible to invade Iran and Gaza then both should be done, but realistically only one is feasible.
I said strikes, not invade!
You'll be rolling tanks into Glasgow next.
What on earth is the point of strikes alone?
If Glaswegians had just invaded England and deliberately murdered thousands including babies and children then damn right I would.
The absolute and complete destruction of Hamas should be the military objective. If you want to throw in the absolute and complete destruction of the Iranian regime, then I'd be support that too, if both were feasible.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
Your problem is that the Israelis are about to do that to the Palestinians. Drive them into the Med.
It doesn't matter whether that's fair or karma or "their fault". It's understandable, sure, but will always remain a bloodbath instigated by Israel.
This isn't to say I'm not as hawkish on this as others. I'd want Israel to go after Iran in response, rather than a full ground invasion of Gaza.
I don't want to see a bloodbath, I want to see safe haven offered by Arab states so that the Arabs living in Gaza can find safety and security.
If the Arab states won't allow their brethren in and it results in a bloodbath when Israel entirely legitimately seeks to destroy Hamas, then why do you think they're acting that way?
This is the same silly wriggle as yesterday.
Do you still support a ground invasion even if there are no escape routes for civilians?
Of course.
Its on other states to provide escape routes. They can't veto Israel's entirely legitimate self-defence and destruction of Hamas by blockading escape routes.
Right, so you're pro-bloodbath.
I'm pro destruction of Hamas.
I want to avoid a bloodbath, but not at the cost of allowing Hamas to exist.
Would support strikes on Iran (if feasible), instead of a ground invasion of Gaza?
That's where Hamas get their funding and arms from.
If feasible to invade Iran and Gaza then both should be done, but realistically only one is feasible.
I said strikes, not invade!
You'll be rolling tanks into Glasgow next.
That's all I need.
I was knocked to the ground by a super-powered ebike Deliveroo guy this morning, that was bad enough.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
How does Israel benefit from incorporating people who are hostile to it?
Land-grabbing, for its own sake, is the stupidest of policies.
I think they want the land, not the people.
The settlements are designed to take some of it where it fits with Israeli population and not Palestinian population.
If thanks to Hamas's actions they get to take all of it because everyone is either driven off or killed, then they get to take all of it - and that's entirely Hamas's fault.
Nothing wrong with Israel wanting a "Greater Israel". The borders haven't been agreed yet, why should they not aspire to that?
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
What is the point of having all this "goodwill" if all it means is that you are told you cannot take any action to defend yourself?
What does this "goodwill" actually amount to?
There have been a goodly number of people whose first instinct was to blame Israel for what happened, to celebrate what happened. They will blame Israel no matter what it does. If this happened to us here, would we be content with "goodwill" or would we take action to deal with the threat?
Those who are worried about civilian deaths should come up with a proposal that might avoid these. That is what the UN is for. Perhaps all those Arab states who are so busy furiously denouncing Israel might use their brains and money to help the poor civilians trapped in Gaza. Perhaps they might lean on Hamas. Perhaps. Perhaps.
But frankly if I were attacked in the way those families were I wouldn't give a shit about having lots of goodwill. I'd want my government to protect me and I'd be pretty bloody sceptical of foreign governments who will rapidly move on when the headlines change.
If we want Israel to do something other than a bloody invasion of Gaza - which may not succeed and which may be strategically unwise and which will certainly kill a lot of innocents - we'd better bloody well offer them an alternative which will work and not just tut about lost goodwill.
I don’t have an alternative , sorry . Maybe the international community could come up with something but they need to act quickly . An interesting view just now on Channel 4 . Netanyahu wants Gazans to leave and go to Egypt and ethnically cleanse them from Gaza so Israel can annex it . Maybe this is why Egypt is reluctant to be too helpful .
The EU took in 6 million refugees from Ukraine. So why not 2 million more from Gaza?
It have to say that it is absolutely shocking that people in Europe are not wanting to take in refugees from Gaza or even talk about the idea. It just gets skimmed over and ignored, as if it is not a serious idea.
That the Arab states won't take them in speaks more volumes.
Doesn't say much about us either.
They're not our responsibility.
When China repressed Hong Kong we offered hundreds of thousands of refugee places to people living there as we had a connection.
The Arab states have a connection here, but are turning their back. Why?
Don't we have a connection too? We have a large Muslim population. Not discussed very much but Humza Yousaf's parents in law are currently trapped in Gaza.
Not to mention a core role as a Colonial power in the country.
The one comment I would make is this: If Israel gets goaded in to a disproportionate response, ie one that involves the killing and starving of civilians, then the whole thing just becomes a fog of war situation, and people will not necessarily side with Israel the way they seem to be expected to. I would also say that I think there is a lot of quiet support for the Palestinian cause. I think there is a risk this situation will ultimately backfire enormously on Israel and weaken it.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
Don't you think that some of that hatred may be caused by - say - the presence of the Israeli army in the West Bank?
Look, I don't deny the Palestinians (in general) hate the Israelis.
I just suspect that if I was born there, then so would I. Indeed, I suspect if you were born there, and lived under Israeli occupation, I suspect you would too.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
How does Israel benefit from incorporating people who are hostile to it?
Land-grabbing, for its own sake, is the stupidest of policies.
In Israel it is coalition of the Greater Israel types (the Sacred Land etc) and pragmatists who are worried about strategic depth opposite the West Bank.
Who is why I advocate spending hundreds of billions on creating more land on the Med. coast.
That way we can peel off the pragmatists and get a deal for the Palestinians.
The one comment I would make is this: If Israel gets goaded in to a disproportionate response, ie one that involves the killing and starving of civilians, then the whole thing just becomes a fog of war situation, and people will not necessarily side with Israel the way they seem to be expected to. I would also say that I think there is a lot of quiet support for the Palestinian cause. I think there is a risk this situation will ultimately backfire enormously on Israel and weaken it.
The purpose of the attacks was to stop Israel's rapprochement with the Arab world.
It is, sadly, likely that they will achieve that goal.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
What is the point of having all this "goodwill" if all it means is that you are told you cannot take any action to defend yourself?
What does this "goodwill" actually amount to?
There have been a goodly number of people whose first instinct was to blame Israel for what happened, to celebrate what happened. They will blame Israel no matter what it does. If this happened to us here, would we be content with "goodwill" or would we take action to deal with the threat?
Those who are worried about civilian deaths should come up with a proposal that might avoid these. That is what the UN is for. Perhaps all those Arab states who are so busy furiously denouncing Israel might use their brains and money to help the poor civilians trapped in Gaza. Perhaps they might lean on Hamas. Perhaps. Perhaps.
But frankly if I were attacked in the way those families were I wouldn't give a shit about having lots of goodwill. I'd want my government to protect me and I'd be pretty bloody sceptical of foreign governments who will rapidly move on when the headlines change.
If we want Israel to do something other than a bloody invasion of Gaza - which may not succeed and which may be strategically unwise and which will certainly kill a lot of innocents - we'd better bloody well offer them an alternative which will work and not just tut about lost goodwill.
I don’t have an alternative , sorry . Maybe the international community could come up with something but they need to act quickly . An interesting view just now on Channel 4 . Netanyahu wants Gazans to leave and go to Egypt and ethnically cleanse them from Gaza so Israel can annex it . Maybe this is why Egypt is reluctant to be too helpful .
The EU took in 6 million refugees from Ukraine. So why not 2 million more from Gaza?
It have to say that it is absolutely shocking that people in Europe are not wanting to take in refugees from Gaza or even talk about the idea. It just gets skimmed over and ignored, as if it is not a serious idea.
That the Arab states won't take them in speaks more volumes.
Doesn't say much about us either.
They're not our responsibility.
When China repressed Hong Kong we offered hundreds of thousands of refugee places to people living there as we had a connection.
The Arab states have a connection here, but are turning their back. Why?
Don't we have a connection too? We have a large Muslim population. Not discussed very much but Humza Yousaf's parents in law are currently trapped in Gaza.
Not to mention a core role as a Colonial power in the country.
Our role isn't the reason the Arab states rejected peace and destroyed the Palestinian state before it was born.
Those who are funding Hamas should take all the Gazan refugees. They're on that side of the divide.
We should be on Ukraine's/Israel's side so should prioritise refugees from them while Iran et all ought to prioritise those from Russia/Palestine.
Even when he was convicted before he only got a community sentence due to new Scottish sentencing guidelines for under 25
Indeed - but your post made it seem like an issue with Scottish law that he was acquitted, whereas it was just plain old cock up by the judge.
And HYUFD was moving into cost-OGH-lots-of-bawbees territory too.
It was factual, he was acquitted on on appeal having been convicted at trial by the jury which appeal judges found was due to judicial misdirection.
It also highlights the limited sentences for under 25s in Scotland now when he was sentenced after conviction at trial to a community sentence
There was a Crown appeal against the sentence but that is obviously academic now. This sentence was out of line and would have been increased if the conviction stood.
It would be entirely wrong to assume that this would be a normal sentence for an under 25 year old. It’s not.
On the conviction Scots law requires corroboration. The corroboration in this case was supposed to come from another complainer but Hogg was acquitted of those charges so that corroboration was not available. The judge had told the jury that they could find corroboration from distress. That can support the allegation something had happened but it cannot, at present, prove penetration. So the direction was wrong. And we cannot have a second trial because of the acquittal of the the charges relating to the other complainer.
For some years I have argued that we value leaders' ability to speak more than we should, and their ability to listen less than we should. (Granted, the second is usually harder to judge from the outside.)
Here's an extreme example from history professor Yuval Noah Harari: "The government was repeatedly warned by its own security forces and by numerous experts that its policies were endangering Israel and eroding Israeli deterrence at a time of mounting external threats. Yet when the IDF’s chief of staff asked for a meeting with Netanyahu to warn him about the security implications of the government’s policies, Netanyahu refused to meet him. When Defense Minister Yoav Gallant nevertheless raised the alarm, Netanyahu fired him. He was then forced to reinstate Gallant only because of an outbreak of popular outrage. Such behavior over many years enabled a calamity to strike Israel." (Links omitted.)
(I have an example of a good listener, Abraham Lincoln, that I plan to share with you some time.)
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
Don't you think that some of that hatred may be caused by - say - the presence of the Israeli army in the West Bank?
Look, I don't deny the Palestinians (in general) hate the Israelis.
I just suspect that if I was born there, then so would I. Indeed, I suspect if you were born there, and lived under Israeli occupation, I suspect you would too.
And some Russians hate Ukrainians, does that mean Ukraine can't defend itself?
If those being occupied by Israel who are operating in self-defence after being repeatedly attacked don't like it, they should go elsewhere and move away from Israel.
On topic, not only are the Tories' failings on issues like law and order and immigration toxic for themselves, they also create something of a sweetspot for Labour on issues have often struggled with in the modern era. They have struggled because have an activist base that demands a liberal "don't blame the individual, blame social causes" approach, and a public which leans far more towards punishment of and protection from the individual. Even though a reasonable approach probably mixes the two (think tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime) it can leave Labour looking insincere or out of touch - too authoritarian for the activist base it often draws its membership from - while too namby pamby and liberal for a key tranche of voters. But if the whole system is failing to the detriment of everyone, then those disparate viewpoints can largely be reconciled in fixing that system. Both those who want criminals locking up and those who want to ensure get fair treatment and rehabilitation have an interest in cases getting to court quicker and prisons functioning. Or the police generally not being both incompetent and overworked and so both committing abuses and not getting the basics of catching the bad guys right. As on asylum, both those who want a more humane system and lots of people turned away need the backlog clearing and faster processing. At the moment that means Starmer can largely pose as someone who'll fix things by taking a more pragmatic approach than a Tory Party trapped by past decisions and headline chasing, and probably please both sets of people.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
Don't you think that some of that hatred may be caused by - say - the presence of the Israeli army in the West Bank?
Look, I don't deny the Palestinians (in general) hate the Israelis.
I just suspect that if I was born there, then so would I. Indeed, I suspect if you were born there, and lived under Israeli occupation, I suspect you would too.
Absolutely. If I was a 17 year old Palestinian youth in Gaza, I would LOATHE the Israelis. They simmer in an anti-Semitic culture, which is forever intensified by the cruel behaviour of Israel and so the loathing gets stronger, like a chef reducing a stock to a powerful essence
I honestly think they need to fight it out now. Both sides are beyond recall, and only an all-out war will solve anything. I do not say that flippantly, it could entangle the world, catastrophically, but after the latest pogroms Israel is clearly going to demolish all of Gaza, and the Palestinians (and other enemies of Israel) will do their best to destroy the Jewish state. This is the fight, right here right now
The best we can do is try and create humanitarian corridors for Gazans to flee through. Then let Jehovah fight Allah
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
Don't you think that some of that hatred may be caused by - say - the presence of the Israeli army in the West Bank?
Look, I don't deny the Palestinians (in general) hate the Israelis.
I just suspect that if I was born there, then so would I. Indeed, I suspect if you were born there, and lived under Israeli occupation, I suspect you would too.
And some Russians hate Ukrainians, does that mean Ukraine can't defend itself?
If those being occupied by Israel who are operating in self-defence after being repeatedly attacked don't like it, they should go elsewhere and move away from Israel.
Hang on.
Where did I say Israel could not defend themselves? I have been absolutely forthright that Israel has every right to defend themselves against this attack.
My point is that in the West Bank, Israel has been far from blameless.
Sure, are the Palestinians more to blame? Probably. But Israel's actions have not exactly been those of a party that seeks a long term peace.
According to initial reports, the large Russian patrol vessel "Pavel Derzhavin" was destroyed today near the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea after accidentally running into one of Russia's own mines. https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712196983417356475
Absolutely zero chance Israel nukes Iran. Biden will veto it. If Israel were to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle then you can be damn sure Putin will be nuking Ukraine. And then we are in all likelihood in WWIII.
We're back to the ominous music and blue tickertape headlines from Threads, aren't we?
Biden will let the Israelis slake their bloodlust for a while and then tell them when it's sufficient. If the Palestinian body count gets close to six digits, I think that's where it begins to get politically tricky for him. They don't want to let it get too genocide-y.
The SMO is settling into a Stan and Hilda Ogden style stalemate. Both sides are making Billy Big Bollocks claims using random number generators to come up with their claimed kills, etc. but both sides are also going nowhere fast.
So I think the doomsday clock has gone backwards a few ticks from this time last year. The wildcard is some fucking idiot from NATO or the RF shooting something down by accident over the Black Sea as nearly happened with the Flanker-E/Rivet Joint episode.
Six figures?
That would be be twice the death rate of people from the UK in the whole of WWII.
Six figures is 100,000 and above not (as I suspect you think) 1 million and above.
The population of Palestine is just under 5m.
The UK population at the time of WW2 was just under 50m.
So, six figures in Palestine, would be equivalent to around 1m UK deaths in WW2.
The UK death toll from WW2 was less than half a million,
And 1m is twice half a million.
I suspect you haven't realised just how astonishingly high a death toll of six figures in Palestine would be.
I suspect you haven't realised that the Israelis don't care.
Now, I did resist sending your maths off to the page for people incorrectly correcting other people, so I think you probably could take my mirroring your language
I was replying to a post suggesting that six figures was the stage the US would step in, and calm things down, not the point when Israel started caring.
The Israeli Government may not care, but I assume most people, and likely pretty much everyone on this site, do care, and would hope that the Israelis would be under pressure to stop a hell of a long time before 2% of the Palestinian population is dead.
For some years I have entertained this speculation about the Israeli settlements in the West Bank: As well as giving Israel greater strategic depth, they are intended -- by some Israeli strategists -- to make a peace deal now, more attractive. By slowly nibbling away at the territory, they hope to weaken those Palestinians who think they should hold out for a better deal.
Naturally, I have no direct evidence for that speculation, but it is consistent with the facts, as I know them.
The one comment I would make is this: If Israel gets goaded in to a disproportionate response, ie one that involves the killing and starving of civilians, then the whole thing just becomes a fog of war situation, and people will not necessarily side with Israel the way they seem to be expected to. I would also say that I think there is a lot of quiet support for the Palestinian cause. I think there is a risk this situation will ultimately backfire enormously on Israel and weaken it.
The Israelis don't care any more. Do you not understand this?
It's like asking the Brits in 1940 to pay attention to editorials in the Los Angeles Times, it's absurd
They have the manpower and the materiel, and they are entirely minded to end this, whatever the world says
According to initial reports, the large Russian patrol vessel "Pavel Derzhavin" was destroyed today near the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea after accidentally running into one of Russia's own mines. https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712196983417356475
According to initial reports, the large Russian patrol vessel "Pavel Derzhavin" was destroyed today near the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea after accidentally running into one of Russia's own mines. https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712196983417356475
According to initial reports, the large Russian patrol vessel "Pavel Derzhavin" was destroyed today near the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea after accidentally running into one of Russia's own mines. https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712196983417356475
Is this what happens when a military goes woke ;-)
According to initial reports, the large Russian patrol vessel "Pavel Derzhavin" was destroyed today near the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea after accidentally running into one of Russia's own mines. https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712196983417356475
Keir Starmer is a lawyer - supposedly a human rights lawyer. He should know that imposing collective punishment such as deprivation of food and water (also demolition of homes and indiscriminate bombing) is against international law."
Whatever the rights of wrongs of his position on Israel, I don't think Starmer will lose any sleep over losing the support of an Ex MP who went to Syria to meet the then head of Hamas and came back saying she thought they were peaceful chaps really who definitely didn't have a problem with Jews.
What someone who was involved once told me was that actually it is very difficult to get sent to jail. The courts will try most every avenue to avoid it and you have to be very determined to end up in prison. Despite the various Daily Mail/Mirror headlines.
What that says about the price of eggs goodness only knows but it would appear that our lily-livered criminal justice system is overwhelmed by actual criminals.
I would imagine that we're also still abiding by human rights legislation that means priosners can't be incarcerated too far from home, so that family can visit, hence still having prisons in London. Are we transferring prisoners around the UK where there's space? We should be.
Gone are the days of Norman Stanley Fletcher being sent to the wilds of Cumbria, far from his home in Muswell Hill
Well back they should come. Sell the prisons in London for housing.
Can't really disagree with you there.
Are you also opposed to families being able to visit prisoners in jail? Most of them are obviously very poor. Who would pay for the the train fares?
I believe the research shows that prisoners who maintain relationships with their families while incarcerated are much less likely to reoffend.
So, it's short term costs vs long term costs. Cheaper prisons but maybe more reoffending.
I'd be interested in seeing that research - I strongly doubt it has a significant bearing on whether we should still place prisons in London, but I'm open to new evidence.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
Palestine declared independence in 1988, and currently 138 of 193 UN members recognise it.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
Palestine declared independence in 1988, and currently 138 of 193 UN members recognise it.
If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions. ~ Abba Eban
Keir Starmer is a lawyer - supposedly a human rights lawyer. He should know that imposing collective punishment such as deprivation of food and water (also demolition of homes and indiscriminate bombing) is against international law."
Whatever the rights of wrongs of his position on Israel, I don't think Starmer will lose any sleep over losing the support of an Ex MP who went to Syria to meet the then head of Hamas and came back saying she thought they were peaceful chaps really who definitely didn't have a problem with Jews.
What it does illustrate is how much Sir K has to keep Labour in the centre ground and be unequivocal about where Labour stands in relation to Israel, western interests, flirting with our sworn enemies and so on.
This is hard because he depends on millions of Islamic votes, but to win where he needs to (eg Cumbria where Labour could and should hold 4 seats and hold none) he has to hold the line.
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
Palestine declared independence in 1988, and currently 138 of 193 UN members recognise it.
If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions. ~ Abba Eban
What does that have to do with the Palestinian State being recognised by 138 UN member states?
Its very strange how the likes of Gary Lineker appear to have nothing to say on the matter, when they normally can't shut up about world affairs.
It really isn't hard, in the way you can criticise Israel actions and particular the (alleged) corruption of their PM / previous statements of some ministers in the government without being an antisemite....you can call Hamas depraved terrorists up their with ISIS and the Nazis, without being an Islamophobe or hating all of Palestine.
These are extraordinary numbers for Crossrail. Now that HS2 has been cancelled, plenty of money left over for more public transport investment in London and the south-east like Crossrail 2 👍👍👍👍
Dreadful scenes from Gaza . It will be uninhabitable by next week . What happens after Israel finishes its operation there.
No food , no water , no power . How long can this be sustained for ?
There’s understandably a lot of goodwill towards Israel given the horrific events of recent days but I just can’t see this lasting if Gaza is razed to the ground and there’s a huge amount of civilian deaths .
If the land becomes a wilderness, and if all the residents get out safely to the south (or otherwise) then that'd be a great resolution.
Who wants a Gazan though as an immigrant? Given they're all so young and impressionable, and the terrorist climate there, I'd question whether anyone would want them.
I think every Palestinian needs to look at themselves and realise that they are in a hopeless nowhere of their own making, and yet the Israelis are shining. More importantly the Arabs and the Palestinians within the state of Israel are happy and prosperous.
I'm sorry, did the Palestinians force the Israelis to build settlements on the West Bank?
I'm happy to go with: this was a cowardly, vicious attack, and we should support the Israelis in dealing with it. But I'm not going to blame the Palestinians for existing. Or, indeed, for hating Israel. I suspect I would to if I had been born there.
Why shouldn't the Israelis build settlements on their own land?
The Arabs, not the Israelis, chose to deny a Palestinian state and Israel offered them one yet again in the negotiations with Arafat which was yet again rejected.
In the meantime, unless or until an agreement is reached, Israel is perfectly free to build on its own land.
In which case, the Palestinians in the West Bank are Israeli citizens, and need to be granted the same rights as all other Israelis.
You can't have it both ways.
I have often wondered if the shrewd Palestinian approach would be to say “we want rights as Israeli citizens”. Hard to argue against given their location, and a terrifying prospect for Israel, which would want rid.
But all for another time. Right now Hamas has committed an atrocity and Israel needs support..
That's my view as well.
This attack was - genuinely - a terrorist attack, designed with the express purpose of terrorizing Israeli citizens.
And we therefore need stand with Israel.
In the long-run, though, Israel needs to decide. Is the West Bank part of Israel? In which case, the people there are Israelis. Or is it part of Palestine? In which case they shouldn't be building settlements there.
You can't have it both ways, because right now the people of the West Bank are treated in much the same was as the black population of South Africa in the Apartheid days.
Why can't they have it both ways? The stated position of both parties is that the final border is up for negotiations.
Why can't they negotiate to include any settlements? Is negotiations only meant to be a one-way ratchet?
If Fatah want Israel out of the West Bank then Fatah should sign a full and final peace settlement that ends the conflict and sets the border at whatever they can get and draw a line under it and move on.
They won't do that though. So until then, Israel needs to look after Israel.
Every settlement that Israel builds makes it harder for them to agree a sustainable Palestinian state. Because that means one more Israeli citizen that would need to be moved back to Israel.
If I were to put myself in the shoes of an average Palestinian in the West Bank, I don't see how I wouldn't feel that I was being slowly - but continually - invaded.
Then sign a peace agreement. They've had plenty of options.
When Israel signed an agreement with Egypt to return Sinai, they dismantled settlements.
Stop trying to be maximalist, recognise Israel's right to exist in peace, negotiate a border of what you can get, and Israel will surely dismantle any settlements outside that border. Arafat had the offer of this and spurned it.
Whatever the Palestinians may "feel", the fault lies squarely with one side and one side alone. Spoiler: Its not Israel.
With all due respect, I don't believe it is the policy of the State of Israel to allow the creation of an independent Palestine.
Certainly, certain parts of Netanyahu's coalition have been vocally opposed to the idea of any Palestinian statehood.
So, to claim this is all the fault of the Palestinians is simply incorrect.
It wasn't Israel who rejected the peace agreement, it was Arafat. So yes, solely and squarely their fault.
And let us not forget that had Egypt and Transjordan not invaded in the first place, there'd have been a state called Palestine existing since 1948.
As for whether Israel wants an independent state now, after Arafat rejected peace? That's irrelevant. Still the Palestinians fault, they're still the ones who rejected peace, and given Hamas are pledging the total destruction of all of Israel and the murder of every Jew from sea to sea, its entirely reasonable self-defence to say you don't want to negotiate with that.
They are human beings, just like you.
Simply because one person did something stupid thirty years ago, does not mean that these human beings should be denied the same rights that other people on planet earth have.
Don't be silly, of course it does.
Thanks to what he did, they live in a warzone.
People in ongoing warzones or conflict areas don't have the same rights that those living in peaceful, sovereign democracies.
If Fatah and Hamas surrender unconditionally and end the war, then a state could maybe be negotiated.
In what way is the West Bank an active warzone?
Or it might be becoming one now, but last year there were what... zero... Israeli military deaths in the West Bank. That's one weird ass warzone.
Because there's no peace agreement.
Just because there's a cessation of active hostilities doesn't mean the war is over.
And only Palestinians are responsible for that right?
Not the members of the Israeli government who openly say there will never be a Palestinian state? Nor the builders of new settlements in the West Bank?
It's all - 100% - the fault of the Palestinians?
Absolutely.
Palestinians rejected the state and have only become more aggressive since then now openly calling for Jews to be killed from sea to sea.
Settlements or the Israeli government are neither here nor there. If someone was seeking the murder of every Englishman I'd completely support the government not negotiating with them.
Palestine declared independence in 1988, and currently 138 of 193 UN members recognise it.
If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions. ~ Abba Eban
What does that have to do with the Palestinian State being recognised by 138 UN member states?
The Palestinian State is not real and the UNGA is a racist body that does not reflect either reality or international law.
But perhaps any of those 138 states should be lining up to provide refuge to Gazans right now?
Or do they only care about Palestine when it comes to bashing Israelis? And they are happy to see Palestinians die in a conflict otherwise?
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton Largest lead for the Conservatives since we started our Blue Wall tracker last October.
Blue Wall VI (7 October):
Conservative 36% (+5) Labour 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (-1) Reform UK 4% (-2) Green 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 10 September
I'm a relative newcomer in these parts. I don't wish to speak out of turn, but...
Fieldwork was done up to and including 7th October. The Labour Party Conference started on 8th October.
Get a grip of yourself and grow up.
Rishi has done well to get a 'bounce' in the Blue Wall where his 'policies' would be manna from heaven.
To suggest that it's a "Conference unbounce' [sic] for Labour is foolish when the Labour Party Conference had yet to start.
If Sir Keir Starmer could walk on water John would be criticising Starmer for not being able to swim.
There are plenty of good reasons to criticise Keir. JohnO doesn’t bother with those, he mostly just reports comforting half-truths from inside the Corbynista bubble.
For some years I have argued that we value leaders' ability to speak more than we should, and their ability to listen less than we should. (Granted, the second is usually harder to judge from the outside.)
Here's an extreme example from history professor Yuval Noah Harari: "The government was repeatedly warned by its own security forces and by numerous experts that its policies were endangering Israel and eroding Israeli deterrence at a time of mounting external threats. Yet when the IDF’s chief of staff asked for a meeting with Netanyahu to warn him about the security implications of the government’s policies, Netanyahu refused to meet him. When Defense Minister Yoav Gallant nevertheless raised the alarm, Netanyahu fired him. He was then forced to reinstate Gallant only because of an outbreak of popular outrage. Such behavior over many years enabled a calamity to strike Israel." (Links omitted.)
(I have an example of a good listener, Abraham Lincoln, that I plan to share with you some time.)
We value speaking over listening generally far too much in society. Social media has only made things worse.
Why should Twitter 'contain' 'misinformation'? Censorship is not going to make everyone less misinformed - if anything it adds credence to the misinformation. People should accept there's a lot of bollocks on social media and use their common sense.
Twitter has turned to shit under Elon, as a direct result of his mismanagement and alt-right fetish.
There was always bollocks on Twitter but the noise:signal ratio has deteriorated rapidly.
And not everyone is a sophisticated, experienced user of social media for news. Many - most - are not, in fact. So when you get forwarded some viral screen grab from Twitter via a friend on WhatsApp (or whatever), it tends to be taken at face value. It’s just human nature.
According to initial reports, the large Russian patrol vessel "Pavel Derzhavin" was destroyed today near the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea after accidentally running into one of Russia's own mines. https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712196983417356475
To quote Battery Sargeant Major Williams… “Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.”
Comments
It also highlights the limited sentences for under 25s in Scotland now when he was sentenced after conviction at trial to a community sentence
You'll be rolling tanks into Glasgow next.
Land-grabbing, for its own sake, is the stupidest of policies.
If Glaswegians had just invaded England and deliberately murdered thousands including babies and children then damn right I would.
The absolute and complete destruction of Hamas should be the military objective. If you want to throw in the absolute and complete destruction of the Iranian regime, then I'd be support that too, if both were feasible.
I was knocked to the ground by a super-powered ebike Deliveroo guy this morning, that was bad enough.
The settlements are designed to take some of it where it fits with Israeli population and not Palestinian population.
If thanks to Hamas's actions they get to take all of it because everyone is either driven off or killed, then they get to take all of it - and that's entirely Hamas's fault.
Nothing wrong with Israel wanting a "Greater Israel". The borders haven't been agreed yet, why should they not aspire to that?
Look, I don't deny the Palestinians (in general) hate the Israelis.
I just suspect that if I was born there, then so would I. Indeed, I suspect if you were born there, and lived under Israeli occupation, I suspect you would too.
Who is why I advocate spending hundreds of billions on creating more land on the Med. coast.
That way we can peel off the pragmatists and get a deal for the Palestinians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVHGhdUDjPU
It is, sadly, likely that they will achieve that goal.
Those who are funding Hamas should take all the Gazan refugees. They're on that side of the divide.
We should be on Ukraine's/Israel's side so should prioritise refugees from them while Iran et all ought to prioritise those from Russia/Palestine.
It would be entirely wrong to assume that this would be a normal sentence for an under 25 year old. It’s not.
On the conviction Scots law requires corroboration. The corroboration in this case was supposed to come from another complainer but Hogg was acquitted of those charges so that corroboration was not available. The judge had told the jury that they could find corroboration from distress. That can support the allegation something had happened but it cannot, at present, prove penetration. So the direction was wrong. And we cannot have a second trial because of the acquittal of the the charges relating to the other complainer.
Here's an extreme example from history professor Yuval Noah Harari: "The government was repeatedly warned by its own security forces and by numerous experts that its policies were endangering Israel and eroding Israeli deterrence at a time of mounting external threats. Yet when the IDF’s chief of staff asked for a meeting with Netanyahu to warn him about the security implications of the government’s policies, Netanyahu refused to meet him. When Defense Minister Yoav Gallant nevertheless raised the alarm, Netanyahu fired him. He was then forced to reinstate Gallant only because of an outbreak of popular outrage. Such behavior over many years enabled a calamity to strike Israel."
(Links omitted.)
(I have an example of a good listener, Abraham Lincoln, that I plan to share with you some time.)
If those being occupied by Israel who are operating in self-defence after being repeatedly attacked don't like it, they should go elsewhere and move away from Israel.
I honestly think they need to fight it out now. Both sides are beyond recall, and only an all-out war will solve anything. I do not say that flippantly, it could entangle the world, catastrophically, but after the latest pogroms Israel is clearly going to demolish all of Gaza, and the Palestinians (and other enemies of Israel) will do their best to destroy the Jewish state. This is the fight, right here right now
The best we can do is try and create humanitarian corridors for Gazans to flee through. Then let Jehovah fight Allah
Where did I say Israel could not defend themselves? I have been absolutely forthright that Israel has every right to defend themselves against this attack.
My point is that in the West Bank, Israel has been far from blameless.
Sure, are the Palestinians more to blame? Probably. But Israel's actions have not exactly been those of a party that seeks a long term peace.
BREAKING:
According to initial reports, the large Russian patrol vessel "Pavel Derzhavin" was destroyed today near the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea after accidentally running into one of Russia's own mines.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712196983417356475
I was replying to a post suggesting that six figures was the stage the US would step in, and calm things down, not the point when Israel started caring.
The Israeli Government may not care, but I assume most people, and likely pretty much everyone on this site, do care, and would hope that the Israelis would be under pressure to stop a hell of a long time before 2% of the Palestinian population is dead.
Naturally, I have no direct evidence for that speculation, but it is consistent with the facts, as I know them.
It's like asking the Brits in 1940 to pay attention to editorials in the Los Angeles Times, it's absurd
They have the manpower and the materiel, and they are entirely minded to end this, whatever the world says
What rights should people in Kherson, Adviivka and Donetsk have.
How about Bamako or Aleppo ?
(My appologies for omitting it from my earlier comment.)
Middle-class Rimal was as close as it could get to Gaza’s Islington – now it lies in ruins
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/11/rimal-gaza-hamas-israeli-bombardment-palestinian/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
This is hard because he depends on millions of Islamic votes, but to win where he needs to (eg Cumbria where Labour could and should hold 4 seats and hold none) he has to hold the line.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/bbc-and-blm-exposed-virtue-signalling-class-moral-depravity/
Its very strange how the likes of Gary Lineker appear to have nothing to say on the matter, when they normally can't shut up about world affairs.
It really isn't hard, in the way you can criticise Israel actions and particular the (alleged) corruption of their PM / previous statements of some ministers in the government without being an antisemite....you can call Hamas depraved terrorists up their with ISIS and the Nazis, without being an Islamophobe or hating all of Palestine.
If you want to see what British prisons were like in 1979/80, watch the BBC's Strangeways documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aWs7RMzREk
New thread
https://twitter.com/Matt_building/status/1712070937741279416?t=OaFEMgL-GzNPERbyXHSThQ&s=19
We northerners drive, of course, so this could never happen in Liverpool etc
But perhaps any of those 138 states should be lining up to provide refuge to Gazans right now?
Or do they only care about Palestine when it comes to bashing Israelis? And they are happy to see Palestinians die in a conflict otherwise?
Social media has only made things worse.