I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think its moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Enfranchising people who are implicitly enemies of the state is surely asking for trouble though?
Why are those people enemies of the state? People seem to think that Palestinian dislike of Israel is somehow inherently based in anti-Semitism, when a much clearer position is that, yes anti-Semitism exists in their culture and always has done, the main reason for the conflict is that one state (Israel) has complete control over them and uses that control to do them harm.
I think people look at Israel as a Jewish state and therefore see all conflict with their neighbours as rooted in that - which is a very very large generalisation. The conflict between Israel and neighbouring states could, and arguably is, be as easily explained by the fact it is a colonialist settler project that was forced on the Arab nations against their will by Europeans, many to be the home of secular Jewish (and later more religious Jewish) people. A state that would clearly share more in common geopolitically with the Western powers in an area where those powers had recently been in charge of the entire region and treated them awfully.
Again, does anti-Semitism play a part? Yes.
But to put all of this down to Jewishness versus Islamist is to ignore the material and geopolitical reality.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
When it comes to war crimes, I tend to distinguish between doing cruel things that may be necessary to win, like placing a city under a complete siege, and letting nothing in, or bombing Hiroshima, and outright sadism, like torturing and raping prisoners for fun.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think it's moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Fine but if England went to war against Spain it would be doing so as an Anglican Protestant State and you would be part of that.
Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.
Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.
However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.
So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
Trouble is, it's a small sample size. It's hard to be convincing that Labour is biased without a bigger sample, more leaders, more PMs. Of course, if Labour starts emulating the Tories in terms of replacing leaders, they'll get there soon enough.
Well of course you clung on to Jezza like a frightened child and all said how wonderful he was and then suddenly he wasnt wonderful any more. Maybe a bit of sorting out the chaff would help with your woman problem.
You appear to have a vivid fantasy life. I am not a Labour supporter. I have never been a Labour supporter. I've never voted for Labour. I am not intending to vote for Labour at the next general election. (I have given Labour my second vote in some London Mayoral contests under SV.) I have not "clung on to Jezza". I think Corbyn was a disaster for Labour and a disaster for the country.
There is an issue with left wing politics that women and non white people are automatically considered by the (majority white) electorate to be more "radical" than they are. So when women, for example, make their way up left wing parties, even if they are quite moderate, they are not assumed to be. This phenomenon is better studied in the US - Clinton and Obama were pretty centrist, and yet most people (including people who liked them and voted for them) assumed they were more left wing than they were. This isn't typical of white male politicians. This then leads to a problem where, for the left specifically, the issue of "electability" becomes an assumption that white male politicians are more "electable" because they are viewed as more moderate. And so women, and non white people, are less likely to head up things like the Labour Party. (There is also a good case to be made about the misogyny of the British labour union movement, and how many of the leaders in that space have historically been men).
Guff. Just about every UK party bar Labour has had a woman leader. Cons, LDs, SNP, DUP. SF, Greens .
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, SDLP, UKIP, Brexit Party too.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not that very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war really means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
So you regard treaties and laws as something that should only be obeyed when it is convenient for countries to do so or that should be imposed on others but not on ourselves? That is an interesting interpretation to say the least.
So you can have no cause for complaint (nor should have any recourse in law) when other countries do not obey them.
First off as I noted, it doesn't look like Gaza is the subject of an aggressor that ignores treaties and laws.
But to address your question, treaties and laws in war are problematic. Proper wars, that is, not asymmetric wars like our Middle East campaigns. We are in an environment whereby we - the west - can impose our treaties and laws on the battlefield because, at the end of the day, we know we are going to win or we know that we can decide when to lose.
Israel seems to believe that it is in an existential war. Let's imagine if there were no Israeli army and a ban on guns. What do you suppose the outcome of last Saturday would have been. Which treaties and laws would have been observed and which ignored. Which brings us back to Israel's retaliation. Almost from the moment the first jet took off to bomb (Hamas targets in) Gaza people have said "hold on now treaties and laws stop that".
What is Israel to do?
Ukraine is in an existential war for its survival and it has been praised by UN human rights rapporteurs for the steps out has taken to comply with its human rights obligations during the war.
Doubtless it is easier for Ukraine to be motivated to do so when there are Ukrainian civilians in the territory occupied by Russia
Yet criticised for the use of cluster munitions, and for placing soldiers in built up areas, which, in the circumstances, seem like very small beer to me.
Criticised by some, yes, but not all.
The Telegraph Ukraine podcast had an interesting interview with a UN human rights rapporteur recently where they discussed the cluster munitions issue, and the UN person wasn't happy about their use, but they have Ukraine credit for talking to them about it and for taking steps to minimise the risk (e.g. record-keeping of where they use them) and they contrasted that with the Russian refusal to talk to them.
I think you can draw, and I think the person from the UN did draw, a distinction between one side that is trying to keep to the rules of war, and another side that isn't.
Pretty easy to see which sides those are in the Israel-Gaza conflict.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
Why are the elderly and disabled patronised in this way? They are perfectly capable of using cashless. As has now been said ad infinitum, the key is to take steps to reduce digital exclusion, not persist with an outdated, flawed form of payment through some warped form of nostalgia.
The council has run a public consultation process which involved the Elders Council and Newcastle Disability Forum. The council's car parks are still accessible to those without a bank account or smart phone, neither are necessary to make a payment. We have staff available in our car parks during the roll out of the new machines and a drop in session at the City Library on October 23 to help people switch to alternative payment methods
Tomorrow I shall be visiting an elderly friend to help him make a large online purchase. Unaided, he managed to get his card blocked.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
Not to get too into the weeds here, but Holocaust minimalization is a pretty common thing amongst lots of people - it just isn't always the part about Jewish people they refute. A German court declared it was Holocaust denial to deny that trans people were victims of the Holocaust - which I have seen people on this forum do. People very rarely like to talk about the gypsy, Roma and other traveller communities that were killed in the Holocaust. I would even go so far to say that the whole trope of "the Nazis were actually left wing" is also in and of itself Holocaust denial, as the killing of left wing activists and union organisers was an explicit part of the Nazi death machine.
Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.
Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.
However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.
So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
Trouble is, it's a small sample size. It's hard to be convincing that Labour is biased without a bigger sample, more leaders, more PMs. Of course, if Labour starts emulating the Tories in terms of replacing leaders, they'll get there soon enough.
Well of course you clung on to Jezza like a frightened child and all said how wonderful he was and then suddenly he wasnt wonderful any more. Maybe a bit of sorting out the chaff would help with your woman problem.
You appear to have a vivid fantasy life. I am not a Labour supporter. I have never been a Labour supporter. I've never voted for Labour. I am not intending to vote for Labour at the next general election. (I have given Labour my second vote in some London Mayoral contests under SV.) I have not "clung on to Jezza". I think Corbyn was a disaster for Labour and a disaster for the country.
There is an issue with left wing politics that women and non white people are automatically considered by the (majority white) electorate to be more "radical" than they are. So when women, for example, make their way up left wing parties, even if they are quite moderate, they are not assumed to be. This phenomenon is better studied in the US - Clinton and Obama were pretty centrist, and yet most people (including people who liked them and voted for them) assumed they were more left wing than they were. This isn't typical of white male politicians. This then leads to a problem where, for the left specifically, the issue of "electability" becomes an assumption that white male politicians are more "electable" because they are viewed as more moderate. And so women, and non white people, are less likely to head up things like the Labour Party. (There is also a good case to be made about the misogyny of the British labour union movement, and how many of the leaders in that space have historically been men).
Guff. Just about every UK party bar Labour has had a woman leader. Cons, LDs, SNP, DUP. SF, Greens .
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, SDLP, UKIP, Brexit Party too.
Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.
Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.
However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.
So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
Trouble is, it's a small sample size. It's hard to be convincing that Labour is biased without a bigger sample, more leaders, more PMs. Of course, if Labour starts emulating the Tories in terms of replacing leaders, they'll get there soon enough.
Well of course you clung on to Jezza like a frightened child and all said how wonderful he was and then suddenly he wasnt wonderful any more. Maybe a bit of sorting out the chaff would help with your woman problem.
You appear to have a vivid fantasy life. I am not a Labour supporter. I have never been a Labour supporter. I've never voted for Labour. I am not intending to vote for Labour at the next general election. (I have given Labour my second vote in some London Mayoral contests under SV.) I have not "clung on to Jezza". I think Corbyn was a disaster for Labour and a disaster for the country.
There is an issue with left wing politics that women and non white people are automatically considered by the (majority white) electorate to be more "radical" than they are. So when women, for example, make their way up left wing parties, even if they are quite moderate, they are not assumed to be. This phenomenon is better studied in the US - Clinton and Obama were pretty centrist, and yet most people (including people who liked them and voted for them) assumed they were more left wing than they were. This isn't typical of white male politicians. This then leads to a problem where, for the left specifically, the issue of "electability" becomes an assumption that white male politicians are more "electable" because they are viewed as more moderate. And so women, and non white people, are less likely to head up things like the Labour Party. (There is also a good case to be made about the misogyny of the British labour union movement, and how many of the leaders in that space have historically been men).
Is that true of Hilary Clinton ? As I remember it, she got quite a lot of flack from the Democrats' left for being somewhat conservative.
But yes, also a lot of flack a man probably would not have received.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think its moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Enfranchising people who are implicitly enemies of the state is surely asking for trouble though?
Why are those people enemies of the state? People seem to think that Palestinian dislike of Israel is somehow inherently based in anti-Semitism, when a much clearer position is that, yes anti-Semitism exists in their culture and always has done, the main reason for the conflict is that one state (Israel) has complete control over them and uses that control to do them harm.
I think people look at Israel as a Jewish state and therefore see all conflict with their neighbours as rooted in that - which is a very very large generalisation. The conflict between Israel and neighbouring states could, and arguably is, be as easily explained by the fact it is a colonialist settler project that was forced on the Arab nations against their will by Europeans, many to be the home of secular Jewish (and later more religious Jewish) people. A state that would clearly share more in common geopolitically with the Western powers in an area where those powers had recently been in charge of the entire region and treated them awfully.
Again, does anti-Semitism play a part? Yes.
But to put all of this down to Jewishness versus Islamist is to ignore the material and geopolitical reality.
When people say they hate Jews and want to wipe them out (and Middle Eastern anti-semitism long predates Israel) I think Jews are entitled to believe them.
Perhaps this current conflict could have been avoided had the Ottomans and British authorities simply mandated that no Jew should ever be allowed to settle in Palestine, but I think that would be hard to defend on ethical groudns.-
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
Oh I'm sure there are. There are people who think the world is flat, that birds are actually government controlled drones, that the Covid Vaccine can control your thoughts...
Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.
Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.
However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.
So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
Trouble is, it's a small sample size. It's hard to be convincing that Labour is biased without a bigger sample, more leaders, more PMs. Of course, if Labour starts emulating the Tories in terms of replacing leaders, they'll get there soon enough.
Well of course you clung on to Jezza like a frightened child and all said how wonderful he was and then suddenly he wasnt wonderful any more. Maybe a bit of sorting out the chaff would help with your woman problem.
You appear to have a vivid fantasy life. I am not a Labour supporter. I have never been a Labour supporter. I've never voted for Labour. I am not intending to vote for Labour at the next general election. (I have given Labour my second vote in some London Mayoral contests under SV.) I have not "clung on to Jezza". I think Corbyn was a disaster for Labour and a disaster for the country.
There is an issue with left wing politics that women and non white people are automatically considered by the (majority white) electorate to be more "radical" than they are. So when women, for example, make their way up left wing parties, even if they are quite moderate, they are not assumed to be. This phenomenon is better studied in the US - Clinton and Obama were pretty centrist, and yet most people (including people who liked them and voted for them) assumed they were more left wing than they were. This isn't typical of white male politicians. This then leads to a problem where, for the left specifically, the issue of "electability" becomes an assumption that white male politicians are more "electable" because they are viewed as more moderate. And so women, and non white people, are less likely to head up things like the Labour Party. (There is also a good case to be made about the misogyny of the British labour union movement, and how many of the leaders in that space have historically been men).
Guff. Just about every UK party bar Labour has had a woman leader. Cons, LDs, SNP, DUP. SF, Greens .
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, SDLP, UKIP, Brexit Party too.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
Again, as I have said before, the attacks of Hamas on civilians are despicable and morally reprehensible. But they happened for a reason, and that reason is not just the hatred of Jewish people. Indeed, many Jewish people are also pointing out why the reaction that the Israeli government is counterproductive and illegal, and indeed that the acts of the Israeli government is what, in part, led to this situation - including literal pieces published in Israeli newspapers by Israeli journalists. If 1,000 people were killed in London by a modern IRA splinter cell I wouldn't expect us to start carpet bombing Ireland. Hell, we know looking at everything post 9/11 that even if it allows you to vent you bloodlust it makes everything much much much worse - for the people you massacre, the region, and everyone else. Yes, I can understand the visceral reaction on an attack on Israeli soil, but that doesn't mean you get a free reign to do war crimes or treat 2 million civilians as all liable for the attacks of terrorist insurgents!
The equivalent death toll in the UK would be:
8,400 dead 18,900 injured
With most of them civilians, babies burned and chopped, old people stabbed, hundreds of rapes, nearly a thousand kidnapped, many beheadings
And all of this done in ONE day and by a political organisation dedicated to killing every British person in the world
In that event, I suggest the British people would be screaming for bloody revenge and the total elimination of this enemy: and the UK government would oblige
But the FA doesn’t want to stand in solidarity with the victims for fear of offending ‘some communities’
If the Wembley arch is to be lit up on Friday, it should only be in the colours of England or Australia. As far as I am aware, neither Israel nor Palestine are playing at Wembley.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
During a bit of an autumn clean, I came across all my old school reports, from when I was five to 18.
They're all utterly cringeworthy. So naturally enough, I've left them out for my son to read...
I have my reports to, JJ, and they too are cringeworthy.
More curiously, I also have Harold Pinter's secondary school report. It's a long story, but I will recount it if here if there is a wish, or privately otherwise.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not that very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war really means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
So you regard treaties and laws as something that should only be obeyed when it is convenient for countries to do so or that should be imposed on others but not on ourselves? That is an interesting interpretation to say the least.
So you can have no cause for complaint (nor should have any recourse in law) when other countries do not obey them.
First off as I noted, it doesn't look like Gaza is the subject of an aggressor that ignores treaties and laws.
But to address your question, treaties and laws in war are problematic. Proper wars, that is, not asymmetric wars like our Middle East campaigns. We are in an environment whereby we - the west - can impose our treaties and laws on the battlefield because, at the end of the day, we know we are going to win or we know that we can decide when to lose.
Israel seems to believe that it is in an existential war. Let's imagine if there were no Israeli army and a ban on guns. What do you suppose the outcome of last Saturday would have been. Which treaties and laws would have been observed and which ignored. Which brings us back to Israel's retaliation. Almost from the moment the first jet took off to bomb (Hamas targets in) Gaza people have said "hold on now treaties and laws stop that".
What is Israel to do?
It’s like a man trying to beat his wife to death to get out of their marriage and as the wife reaches for the carving knife, he says “whoa dear, I think we need to speak to the lawyers about a divorce”.
The problem is that it's easy to read either Israel or Palestine as the wife there.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
Though his views have evolved, if that’s the right word, I’m pretty sure David Irving is a genuine Holocaust denier. He has got increasingly deranged, mind.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
Both come into the category of "cruel but necessary" in my view.
During a bit of an autumn clean, I came across all my old school reports, from when I was five to 18.
They're all utterly cringeworthy. So naturally enough, I've left them out for my son to read...
I have my reports to, JJ, and they too are cringeworthy.
More curiously, I also have Harold Pinter's secondary school report. It's a long story, but I will recount it if here if there is a wish, or privately otherwise.
Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.
Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.
However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.
So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
Trouble is, it's a small sample size. It's hard to be convincing that Labour is biased without a bigger sample, more leaders, more PMs. Of course, if Labour starts emulating the Tories in terms of replacing leaders, they'll get there soon enough.
Well of course you clung on to Jezza like a frightened child and all said how wonderful he was and then suddenly he wasnt wonderful any more. Maybe a bit of sorting out the chaff would help with your woman problem.
You appear to have a vivid fantasy life. I am not a Labour supporter. I have never been a Labour supporter. I've never voted for Labour. I am not intending to vote for Labour at the next general election. (I have given Labour my second vote in some London Mayoral contests under SV.) I have not "clung on to Jezza". I think Corbyn was a disaster for Labour and a disaster for the country.
There is an issue with left wing politics that women and non white people are automatically considered by the (majority white) electorate to be more "radical" than they are. So when women, for example, make their way up left wing parties, even if they are quite moderate, they are not assumed to be. This phenomenon is better studied in the US - Clinton and Obama were pretty centrist, and yet most people (including people who liked them and voted for them) assumed they were more left wing than they were. This isn't typical of white male politicians. This then leads to a problem where, for the left specifically, the issue of "electability" becomes an assumption that white male politicians are more "electable" because they are viewed as more moderate. And so women, and non white people, are less likely to head up things like the Labour Party. (There is also a good case to be made about the misogyny of the British labour union movement, and how many of the leaders in that space have historically been men).
Is that true of Hilary Clinton ? As I remember it, she got quite a lot of flack from the Democrats' left for being somewhat conservative.
But yes, also a lot of flack a man probably would not have received.
Hillary Clinton was viewed as more left wing than her policy positions, both when she ran against Obama and when she ran against Trump. Again, I remember reading the 538 piece about it, but because it was so long ago it is very difficult to find...
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
well if it was it didnt work out well for him.
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
That has been a huge debate on Twitter (and it is still rumbling on). There have been some quite hideous comments by Hamas apologists saying “oh only five babies were beheaded the rest were shot” or “they only cut the throats of the babies and anyway its racist to suggest all Arabs are beheaders”
Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn · 2h We should condemn the targeting of all civilian life, no matter who does it.
The best analogy I ever heard to the old "Black Lives Matter? How about All Lives Matter" thing was "it's like marching into someone's funeral and shouting 'My dad died too!'"
Rubbish analogy
We should condemn the targeting of all civilian life, no matter who does it.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
That’s Mumsnet for you.
I was going to say, wait till they get onto biscuits, but then I remembered that biscuits became part of the arguments about atrocities in Belgium in 1914, with German biscuits being cancelled and renamed Belgian biscuits, though oddly enough not cakes (or at least not Battenberg).
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
well if it was it didnt work out well for him.
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
I definitely got the impression, by the end, that he meant it. He went into such detail
I will not forget the comment when he claimed the Nazis built “swimming pools” for the inmates at Auschwitz
During a bit of an autumn clean, I came across all my old school reports, from when I was five to 18.
They're all utterly cringeworthy. So naturally enough, I've left them out for my son to read...
I have my reports to, JJ, and they too are cringeworthy.
More curiously, I also have Harold Pinter's secondary school report. It's a long story, but I will recount it if here if there is a wish, or privately otherwise.
You're really Peter_the_Pinter ?
Lol! No, but Harold and I were both pupils of Joe Brearley, who is widely credited with having encouraged and inspired the young scribe.
Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn · 2h We should condemn the targeting of all civilian life, no matter who does it.
The best analogy I ever heard to the old "Black Lives Matter? How about All Lives Matter" thing was "it's like marching into someone's funeral and shouting 'My dad died too!'"
Rubbish analogy
We should condemn the targeting of all civilian life, no matter who does it.
Means exactly that and is spot on.
He can name Palestinians as victims, but apparently he can't name Israelis as victims. Why is that?
Corbyn writing the press releases for the EPL as well as the FA...
New from Premier League: “The Premier League is shocked and saddened by the escalating crisis in Israel and Gaza, and strongly condemns the horrific and brutal acts of violence against innocent civilians.” Silence and armbands at the next games
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
That has been a huge debate on Twitter (and it is still rumbling on). There have been some quite hideous comments by Hamas apologists saying “oh only five babies were beheaded the rest were shot” or “they only cut the throats of the babies and anyway its racist to suggest all Arabs are beheaders”
(These are real statements)
Like some of the comments on reports that Shani Louk might have survived being shot through the head.
The Western media are liars to report that she was murdered, when she was only kidnapped, tortured, had her limbs broken, shot through the head, and exhibited naked.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
That has been a huge debate on Twitter (and it is still rumbling on). There have been some quite hideous comments by Hamas apologists saying “oh only five babies were beheaded the rest were shot” or “they only cut the throats of the babies and anyway its racist to suggest all Arabs are beheaders”
The dog that has not barked in the night time, unless you know different, is the feared attacks on Jewish schoolchildren and businesses. There was one kosher restaurant smashed up but reading between the lines, it looks more like a robbery.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think its moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Enfranchising people who are implicitly enemies of the state is surely asking for trouble though?
Why are those people enemies of the state? People seem to think that Palestinian dislike of Israel is somehow inherently based in anti-Semitism, when a much clearer position is that, yes anti-Semitism exists in their culture and always has done, the main reason for the conflict is that one state (Israel) has complete control over them and uses that control to do them harm.
I think people look at Israel as a Jewish state and therefore see all conflict with their neighbours as rooted in that - which is a very very large generalisation. The conflict between Israel and neighbouring states could, and arguably is, be as easily explained by the fact it is a colonialist settler project that was forced on the Arab nations against their will by Europeans, many to be the home of secular Jewish (and later more religious Jewish) people. A state that would clearly share more in common geopolitically with the Western powers in an area where those powers had recently been in charge of the entire region and treated them awfully.
Again, does anti-Semitism play a part? Yes.
But to put all of this down to Jewishness versus Islamist is to ignore the material and geopolitical reality.
When people say they hate Jews and want to wipe them out (and Middle Eastern anti-semitism long predates Israel) I think Jews are entitled to believe them.
Perhaps this current conflict could have been avoided had the Ottomans and British authorities simply mandated that no Jew should ever be allowed to settle in Palestine, but I think that would be hard to defend on ethical groudns.-
European people conflate Jewish and Israeli all the time - when you live in Gaza I can see why that would happen more than in most places. And like I said, I am sure that anti-Semitism plays a role in it. But before there was a state of Israel there were also large numbers of mixed communities where Jewish people lived in harmony with the local people there; indeed many who fled European anti-Semitism, pogroms and the Holocaust, went to the holy land. Was it perfect, no, nowhere is, but they did live together.
The issue of partition, with a specific state for Jewish Israelis and a specific state for Palestinian Arabs, is when the modern conflict arose. People do not like being displaced from their land and told to live elsewhere, and other countries don't like new neighbours who will have more in common with an opposing geopolitical block than them.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
well if it was it didnt work out well for him.
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
I definitely got the impression, by the end, that he meant it. He went into such detail
I will not forget the comment when he claimed the Nazis built “swimming pools” for the inmates at Auschwitz
What an odd thing to say. It was quite common in the UK to build standing water tanks (some above ground) for firefighting in case the mains was done in, but even if that is what was going on, it is a hell of a reinterpretation!
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
well if it was it didnt work out well for him.
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
I definitely got the impression, by the end, that he meant it. He went into such detail
I will not forget the comment when he claimed the Nazis built “swimming pools” for the inmates at Auschwitz
It really was his "specialist" subject after Psephology.
Corbyn writing the press releases for the EPL as well as the FA...
New from Premier League: “The Premier League is shocked and saddened by the escalating crisis in Israel and Gaza, and strongly condemns the horrific and brutal acts of violence against innocent civilians.” Silence and armbands at the next games
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
That was my point and I'm glad we agree. @boulay was telling me that there have been war crimes since 1750BC via 1864 and a week last Thursday. I don't disagree but they are problematic in concept because when you have to win a war you have to win a war and you will, as Dresden and Hiroshima attest, do just about anything you believe you have to to do so.
The fact that afterwards or even before they were deemed war crimes is irrelevant. Do you ignore laws and treaties? No you try not to but as I mentioned, there is no point saying well at least I followed the rules as German forces march up through Kent towards London.
Stand by for calls of shes the wrong kind of black or Starmer saying shes got a penis.
Your desperate attempts to find something, anything, positive for the moribund Tories is a continuous source of amusement.
I dont defend the Tories I criticise Labour I am by nature an ABL.
However we now have the prospect of the Tories on their 4th woman leader, and second BAME all while "progressive" Labour stay in the nineteenth century. Even the DUP have had a woman leader which shows just how neanderthal Labour is. And from that list of candidates above the one white guy has no chance.
So perhaps you as a Labourite would like to explain what your party has against women or non-whites. ? Why is there a glass ceiling that none can pierce ?
Trouble is, it's a small sample size. It's hard to be convincing that Labour is biased without a bigger sample, more leaders, more PMs. Of course, if Labour starts emulating the Tories in terms of replacing leaders, they'll get there soon enough.
Well of course you clung on to Jezza like a frightened child and all said how wonderful he was and then suddenly he wasnt wonderful any more. Maybe a bit of sorting out the chaff would help with your woman problem.
You appear to have a vivid fantasy life. I am not a Labour supporter. I have never been a Labour supporter. I've never voted for Labour. I am not intending to vote for Labour at the next general election. (I have given Labour my second vote in some London Mayoral contests under SV.) I have not "clung on to Jezza". I think Corbyn was a disaster for Labour and a disaster for the country.
There is an issue with left wing politics that women and non white people are automatically considered by the (majority white) electorate to be more "radical" than they are. So when women, for example, make their way up left wing parties, even if they are quite moderate, they are not assumed to be. This phenomenon is better studied in the US - Clinton and Obama were pretty centrist, and yet most people (including people who liked them and voted for them) assumed they were more left wing than they were. This isn't typical of white male politicians. This then leads to a problem where, for the left specifically, the issue of "electability" becomes an assumption that white male politicians are more "electable" because they are viewed as more moderate. And so women, and non white people, are less likely to head up things like the Labour Party. (There is also a good case to be made about the misogyny of the British labour union movement, and how many of the leaders in that space have historically been men).
Guff. Just about every UK party bar Labour has had a woman leader. Cons, LDs, SNP, DUP. SF, Greens .
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, SDLP, UKIP, Brexit Party too.
But not the UUP, TUV or Alba.
MRLP?
They've not had any human female leaders. I have not been able to find out the gender of the party's feline co-leader, Catmando.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
And of course post war the UK and US have signed up to a treaty that, without postdating it, says that actions such as the bombing of Dresen would, forthwith, be considered war crimes.
Hiroshima is more interesting (if you will excuse the rather callous phrase) because the was the argumet that, in the wake of the mass suicides on Iwo Jima using the atomic bomb on the city actually saved more Japanese civilian lives than it took.
But even in that instance, using it as a justification for anything today implies it would be acceptable for a power today to make first use of a nuclear weapon for strategic purposes. Which would certainly be considered a war crime. So I am not convinced Topping has thought this through very carefully.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think it's moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Fine but if England went to war against Spain it would be doing so as an Anglican Protestant State and you would be part of that.
Why would I? I’d be English, sure, but not Protestant (or indeed any religion)
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
That has been a huge debate on Twitter (and it is still rumbling on). There have been some quite hideous comments by Hamas apologists saying “oh only five babies were beheaded the rest were shot” or “they only cut the throats of the babies and anyway its racist to suggest all Arabs are beheaders”
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
That was my point and I'm glad we agree. @boulay was telling me that there have been war crimes since 1750BC via 1864 and a week last Thursday. I don't disagree but they are problematic in concept because when you have to win a war you have to win a war and you will, as Dresden and Hiroshima attest, do just about anything you believe you have to to do so.
The fact that afterwards or even before they were deemed war crimes is irrelevant. Do you ignore laws and treaties? No you try not to but as I mentioned, there is no point saying well at least I followed the rules as German forces march up through Kent towards London.
Was I? Can’t remember that but I am on the same page as the rest of your comment.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
And of course post war the UK and US have signed up to a treaty that, without postdating it, says that actions such as the bombing of Dresen would, forthwith, be considered war crimes.
Hiroshima is more interesting (if you will excuse the rather callous phrase) because the was the argumet that, in the wake of the mass suicides on Iwo Jima using the atomic bomb on the city actually saved more Japanese civilian lives than it took.
But even in that instance, using it as a justification for anything today implies it would be acceptable for a power today to make first use of a nuclear weapon for strategic purposes. Which would certainly be considered a war crime. So I am not convinced Topping has thought this through very carefully.
I've shared the Shaun video here almost every time this has come up - I do not believe the US needed to use nukes to end the war with Japan, nor do I think that was why the US used nukes. They did it to show the USSR that they had them.
Warning: a two hour history video (it's essentially a podcast, because the video does nothing but show pictures and quotes, but still, two hours)
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
I have long noted that "might makes right" because it so often does. I was criticised by many on here for saying that Russia learned from the US that yes you can just march into a sovereign nation if you have the military wherewithal to do so which was no more or less than an acknowledgement (and certainly not a value judgement) that the world operates on "might makes right".
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
That has been a huge debate on Twitter (and it is still rumbling on). There have been some quite hideous comments by Hamas apologists saying “oh only five babies were beheaded the rest were shot” or “they only cut the throats of the babies and anyway its racist to suggest all Arabs are beheaders”
(These are real statements)
Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace.
So is Christianity - what with turning the cheek and martyrdom and all that.
The dog that has not barked in the night time, unless you know different, is the feared attacks on Jewish schoolchildren and businesses. There was one kosher restaurant smashed up but reading between the lines, it looks more like a robbery.
89 incidents logged in four days, a threefold increase,
Six of the 89 incidents were physical assaults, three involved damage to Jewish property, 14 were direct threats, with 66 cases of abusive behavior including 22 online.
Among the incidents the CST reported was an Orthodox Jewish man on a London bus approached by a man in his 40s, who hit him in the face and tried to take his hat, a religious symbol.
I am always cautious when they then report the "percentage increase" as it is difficult to separate out if it is really an increase or rather people being much keener to report these incidents or perhaps due to increased tensions and fear they determine certain incidents as definitely a racist incident when it is not the root cause of it e.g. we have had infamous cases of claims of certain things were definitely an Islamophobic revenge incident and we later find out that all involved are scumbag criminals, beefing over criminality.
Why are the elderly and disabled patronised in this way? They are perfectly capable of using cashless. As has now been said ad infinitum, the key is to take steps to reduce digital exclusion, not persist with an outdated, flawed form of payment through some warped form of nostalgia.
The council has run a public consultation process which involved the Elders Council and Newcastle Disability Forum. The council's car parks are still accessible to those without a bank account or smart phone, neither are necessary to make a payment. We have staff available in our car parks during the roll out of the new machines and a drop in session at the City Library on October 23 to help people switch to alternative payment methods
That wording does not mention what the responses to the consultation were, or whether the Council has ignored them or not.
If they did not listen (I hope they did and have support for their action), they are putting themselves in the same position as the Govt "CLOSE THE TICKET OFFICES" Diktat to the rail organisations, and that has earned the Govt a 100k+ petition and two Judicial Reviews *, so far - just with added weasel words.
* One of the people involved is Doug Paulley, who was the person who won a legal action to make the rail industry accept that Rail Replacement Buses should be accessible, and another one that wheelchair users have a legal right to first priority on use of wheelchair spaces on buses (which was half a victory, the following problem is making bus drivers accept it in practice - they often do nothing if Karen has put her pushchair there and refuses to move it, so the wheelchair user gets left at the bus stop).
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think its moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Enfranchising people who are implicitly enemies of the state is surely asking for trouble though?
Why are those people enemies of the state? People seem to think that Palestinian dislike of Israel is somehow inherently based in anti-Semitism, when a much clearer position is that, yes anti-Semitism exists in their culture and always has done, the main reason for the conflict is that one state (Israel) has complete control over them and uses that control to do them harm.
I think people look at Israel as a Jewish state and therefore see all conflict with their neighbours as rooted in that - which is a very very large generalisation. The conflict between Israel and neighbouring states could, and arguably is, be as easily explained by the fact it is a colonialist settler project that was forced on the Arab nations against their will by Europeans, many to be the home of secular Jewish (and later more religious Jewish) people. A state that would clearly share more in common geopolitically with the Western powers in an area where those powers had recently been in charge of the entire region and treated them awfully.
Again, does anti-Semitism play a part? Yes.
But to put all of this down to Jewishness versus Islamist is to ignore the material and geopolitical reality.
When people say they hate Jews and want to wipe them out (and Middle Eastern anti-semitism long predates Israel) I think Jews are entitled to believe them.
Perhaps this current conflict could have been avoided had the Ottomans and British authorities simply mandated that no Jew should ever be allowed to settle in Palestine, but I think that would be hard to defend on ethical groudns.-
European people conflate Jewish and Israeli all the time - when you live in Gaza I can see why that would happen more than in most places. And like I said, I am sure that anti-Semitism plays a role in it. But before there was a state of Israel there were also large numbers of mixed communities where Jewish people lived in harmony with the local people there; indeed many who fled European anti-Semitism, pogroms and the Holocaust, went to the holy land. Was it perfect, no, nowhere is, but they did live together.
The issue of partition, with a specific state for Jewish Israelis and a specific state for Palestinian Arabs, is when the modern conflict arose. People do not like being displaced from their land and told to live elsewhere, and other countries don't like new neighbours who will have more in common with an opposing geopolitical block than them.
The modern conflict goes back further, to, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots The idea of partition was a reaction to the tensions between the two communities in the '20s and '30s following Zionist immigration.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
I have long noted that "might makes right" because it so often does. I was criticised by many on here for saying that Russia learned from the US that yes you can just march into a sovereign nation if you have the military wherewithal to do so which was no more or less than an acknowledgement (and certainly not a value judgement) that the world operates on "might makes right".
I think obviously winning means you win, and that a moral victory is all well and good but if you aren't around to do anything with that then it means basically nothing. But the discussion of war crimes and such is a moral question - what things should be acceptable and such. And even the might makes right people accepted stuff they did (and still did afterwards) are things that shouldn't be done...
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
well if it was it didnt work out well for him.
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
What's worse is that he was repeatedly begged: please, please, please don't talk about the holocaust.
But it was like a tic, he simply couldn't stop himself.
Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn · 2h We should condemn the targeting of all civilian life, no matter who does it.
The best analogy I ever heard to the old "Black Lives Matter? How about All Lives Matter" thing was "it's like marching into someone's funeral and shouting 'My dad died too!'"
Rubbish analogy
We should condemn the targeting of all civilian life, no matter who does it.
Means exactly that and is spot on.
He can name Palestinians as victims, but apparently he can't name Israelis as victims. Why is that?
Both are included in ALL.
Not my problem if you want to claim all exclude Israelis it clearly doesn't
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
well if it was it didnt work out well for him.
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
What's worse is that he was repeatedly begged: please, please, please don't talk about the holocaust.
But it was like a tic, he simply couldn't stop himself.
Indeed
I remember the bans he got and the moderators telling him not to go there
Why are the elderly and disabled patronised in this way? They are perfectly capable of using cashless. As has now been said ad infinitum, the key is to take steps to reduce digital exclusion, not persist with an outdated, flawed form of payment through some warped form of nostalgia.
The council has run a public consultation process which involved the Elders Council and Newcastle Disability Forum. The council's car parks are still accessible to those without a bank account or smart phone, neither are necessary to make a payment. We have staff available in our car parks during the roll out of the new machines and a drop in session at the City Library on October 23 to help people switch to alternative payment methods
That wording does not mention what the responses to the consultation were, or whether the Council has ignored them or not.
If they did not listen (I hope they did and have support for their action), they are putting themselves in the same position as the Govt "CLOSE THE TICKET OFFICES" Diktat to the rail organisations, and that has earned the Govt a 100k+ petition and two Judicial Reviews *, so far - just with added weasel words.
* One of the people involved is Doug Paulley, who was the person who won a legal action to make the rail industry accept that Rail Replacement Buses should be accessible, and another one that wheelchair users have a legal right to first priority on use of wheelchair spaces on buses (which was half a victory, the following problem is making bus drivers accept it in practice - they often do nothing if Karen has put her pushchair there and refuses to move it, so the wheelchair user gets left at the bus stop).
What are bus drivers supposed to do? Chuck the baby out of its pram?
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
That was my point and I'm glad we agree. @boulay was telling me that there have been war crimes since 1750BC via 1864 and a week last Thursday. I don't disagree but they are problematic in concept because when you have to win a war you have to win a war and you will, as Dresden and Hiroshima attest, do just about anything you believe you have to to do so.
The fact that afterwards or even before they were deemed war crimes is irrelevant. Do you ignore laws and treaties? No you try not to but as I mentioned, there is no point saying well at least I followed the rules as German forces march up through Kent towards London.
It is unclear the degree to which the bombing of Dresden did aid the Allied war effort. Targeting bombing at the enemy military and infrastructure is probably much more effective than attacking civilian targets. Many view Nazi Germany's decision to switch to targeting civilian targets in the Blitz as being part of why they lost the Battle of Britain.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
well if it was it didnt work out well for him.
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
I definitely got the impression, by the end, that he meant it. He went into such detail
I will not forget the comment when he claimed the Nazis built “swimming pools” for the inmates at Auschwitz
It really was his "specialist" subject after Psephology.
@RodCrosby was before my time (and Leon's, strangely) but if his comments on his second 'specialist' subject are anything to go by his expertise on psephology might be suspect.
Why are the elderly and disabled patronised in this way? They are perfectly capable of using cashless. As has now been said ad infinitum, the key is to take steps to reduce digital exclusion, not persist with an outdated, flawed form of payment through some warped form of nostalgia.
The council has run a public consultation process which involved the Elders Council and Newcastle Disability Forum. The council's car parks are still accessible to those without a bank account or smart phone, neither are necessary to make a payment. We have staff available in our car parks during the roll out of the new machines and a drop in session at the City Library on October 23 to help people switch to alternative payment methods
Tomorrow I shall be visiting an elderly friend to help him make a large online purchase. Unaided, he managed to get his card blocked.
Lots of non-elderly, able-bodied people manage to get their cards blocked too
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
That has been a huge debate on Twitter (and it is still rumbling on). There have been some quite hideous comments by Hamas apologists saying “oh only five babies were beheaded the rest were shot” or “they only cut the throats of the babies and anyway its racist to suggest all Arabs are beheaders”
(These are real statements)
Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace.
So is Christianity - what with turning the cheek and martyrdom and all that.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think its moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Enfranchising people who are implicitly enemies of the state is surely asking for trouble though?
Why are those people enemies of the state? People seem to think that Palestinian dislike of Israel is somehow inherently based in anti-Semitism, when a much clearer position is that, yes anti-Semitism exists in their culture and always has done, the main reason for the conflict is that one state (Israel) has complete control over them and uses that control to do them harm.
I think people look at Israel as a Jewish state and therefore see all conflict with their neighbours as rooted in that - which is a very very large generalisation. The conflict between Israel and neighbouring states could, and arguably is, be as easily explained by the fact it is a colonialist settler project that was forced on the Arab nations against their will by Europeans, many to be the home of secular Jewish (and later more religious Jewish) people. A state that would clearly share more in common geopolitically with the Western powers in an area where those powers had recently been in charge of the entire region and treated them awfully.
Again, does anti-Semitism play a part? Yes.
But to put all of this down to Jewishness versus Islamist is to ignore the material and geopolitical reality.
When people say they hate Jews and want to wipe them out (and Middle Eastern anti-semitism long predates Israel) I think Jews are entitled to believe them.
Perhaps this current conflict could have been avoided had the Ottomans and British authorities simply mandated that no Jew should ever be allowed to settle in Palestine, but I think that would be hard to defend on ethical groudns.-
European people conflate Jewish and Israeli all the time - when you live in Gaza I can see why that would happen more than in most places. And like I said, I am sure that anti-Semitism plays a role in it. But before there was a state of Israel there were also large numbers of mixed communities where Jewish people lived in harmony with the local people there; indeed many who fled European anti-Semitism, pogroms and the Holocaust, went to the holy land. Was it perfect, no, nowhere is, but they did live together.
The issue of partition, with a specific state for Jewish Israelis and a specific state for Palestinian Arabs, is when the modern conflict arose. People do not like being displaced from their land and told to live elsewhere, and other countries don't like new neighbours who will have more in common with an opposing geopolitical block than them.
It's easy to point at partition and call that the problem. However, the only difference between 7th October and thousands of similar massacres over many centuries before 1948, is that Jews now have a state and an army to stand up for them when they're attacked.
It's entirely fanciful to suggest that they're going to give that up, so, however problematic one might view partition, it's something we do have to work with.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
well if it was it didnt work out well for him.
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
I definitely got the impression, by the end, that he meant it. He went into such detail
I will not forget the comment when he claimed the Nazis built “swimming pools” for the inmates at Auschwitz
It really was his "specialist" subject after Psephology.
@RodCrosby was before my time (and Leon's, strangely) but if his comments on his second 'specialist' subject are anything to go by his expertise on psephology might be suspect.
No, that was the weirdest thing. He was absolutely super sharp on polling, modelling polling etc. I had conversations with him on here and in private where I asked him technical questions about his models, the academic research papers behind them, and he really really knew his stuff. He was "money balling" politics with computer models before most sports teams. At times people took the piss out of him and his "swingback theory etc, but he made a lot of money out of doing so....I seemed to remember the story he bought a plane off the back of one GE.
Which made his absolutely blindspot (that doesn't really do it justice) over the Holocaust just bizarre.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
That has been a huge debate on Twitter (and it is still rumbling on). There have been some quite hideous comments by Hamas apologists saying “oh only five babies were beheaded the rest were shot” or “they only cut the throats of the babies and anyway its racist to suggest all Arabs are beheaders”
(These are real statements)
Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace.
So is Christianity - what with turning the cheek and martyrdom and all that.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think its moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Enfranchising people who are implicitly enemies of the state is surely asking for trouble though?
Why are those people enemies of the state? People seem to think that Palestinian dislike of Israel is somehow inherently based in anti-Semitism, when a much clearer position is that, yes anti-Semitism exists in their culture and always has done, the main reason for the conflict is that one state (Israel) has complete control over them and uses that control to do them harm.
I think people look at Israel as a Jewish state and therefore see all conflict with their neighbours as rooted in that - which is a very very large generalisation. The conflict between Israel and neighbouring states could, and arguably is, be as easily explained by the fact it is a colonialist settler project that was forced on the Arab nations against their will by Europeans, many to be the home of secular Jewish (and later more religious Jewish) people. A state that would clearly share more in common geopolitically with the Western powers in an area where those powers had recently been in charge of the entire region and treated them awfully.
Again, does anti-Semitism play a part? Yes.
But to put all of this down to Jewishness versus Islamist is to ignore the material and geopolitical reality.
When people say they hate Jews and want to wipe them out (and Middle Eastern anti-semitism long predates Israel) I think Jews are entitled to believe them.
Perhaps this current conflict could have been avoided had the Ottomans and British authorities simply mandated that no Jew should ever be allowed to settle in Palestine, but I think that would be hard to defend on ethical groudns.-
European people conflate Jewish and Israeli all the time - when you live in Gaza I can see why that would happen more than in most places. And like I said, I am sure that anti-Semitism plays a role in it. But before there was a state of Israel there were also large numbers of mixed communities where Jewish people lived in harmony with the local people there; indeed many who fled European anti-Semitism, pogroms and the Holocaust, went to the holy land. Was it perfect, no, nowhere is, but they did live together.
The issue of partition, with a specific state for Jewish Israelis and a specific state for Palestinian Arabs, is when the modern conflict arose. People do not like being displaced from their land and told to live elsewhere, and other countries don't like new neighbours who will have more in common with an opposing geopolitical block than them.
The modern conflict goes back further, to, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots The idea of partition was a reaction to the tensions between the two communities in the '20s and '30s following Zionist immigration.
There's a lot of evidence suggesting the British administration had a hand in that, no? Which is not unreasonable considering a) exacerbating local conflict was the main method of imperial control across the entire British empire and b) the British would also have likely been super anti-Semitic? Also the tensions were linked with other geo/political concerns, such as the belief that Arabs held that they would get full independence after the war which they thought they had been promised / earned during the fighting against the Ottomans.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think its moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Enfranchising people who are implicitly enemies of the state is surely asking for trouble though?
Why are those people enemies of the state? People seem to think that Palestinian dislike of Israel is somehow inherently based in anti-Semitism, when a much clearer position is that, yes anti-Semitism exists in their culture and always has done, the main reason for the conflict is that one state (Israel) has complete control over them and uses that control to do them harm.
I think people look at Israel as a Jewish state and therefore see all conflict with their neighbours as rooted in that - which is a very very large generalisation. The conflict between Israel and neighbouring states could, and arguably is, be as easily explained by the fact it is a colonialist settler project that was forced on the Arab nations against their will by Europeans, many to be the home of secular Jewish (and later more religious Jewish) people. A state that would clearly share more in common geopolitically with the Western powers in an area where those powers had recently been in charge of the entire region and treated them awfully.
Again, does anti-Semitism play a part? Yes.
But to put all of this down to Jewishness versus Islamist is to ignore the material and geopolitical reality.
When people say they hate Jews and want to wipe them out (and Middle Eastern anti-semitism long predates Israel) I think Jews are entitled to believe them.
Perhaps this current conflict could have been avoided had the Ottomans and British authorities simply mandated that no Jew should ever be allowed to settle in Palestine, but I think that would be hard to defend on ethical groudns.-
European people conflate Jewish and Israeli all the time - when you live in Gaza I can see why that would happen more than in most places. And like I said, I am sure that anti-Semitism plays a role in it. But before there was a state of Israel there were also large numbers of mixed communities where Jewish people lived in harmony with the local people there; indeed many who fled European anti-Semitism, pogroms and the Holocaust, went to the holy land. Was it perfect, no, nowhere is, but they did live together.
The issue of partition, with a specific state for Jewish Israelis and a specific state for Palestinian Arabs, is when the modern conflict arose. People do not like being displaced from their land and told to live elsewhere, and other countries don't like new neighbours who will have more in common with an opposing geopolitical block than them.
There were indeed, many cases of Jews and non-Jews, living in harmony throughout the Middle East, but always upon the understanding that in majority Muslim lands, the Jews had a second-class status (paying a special tax, having to wear distinctive clothing, in some cities having to reside in designated areas, their testimony being discounted in court cases if contradicted by the testimony of a Muslim etc.) Very much in line with the more "enlightened" European countries, pre19th century.
But in the 19th and 20th centuries, as Arab nationalism came to prominence, you increasingly saw the blood libel being alleged, and pogroms being conducted in the Middle East. The creation of a State which (on its initial boundaries) was twice the size of Devon, comes nowhere close to explain the outpouring of Jew-hatred in Arab lands.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
And of course post war the UK and US have signed up to a treaty that, without postdating it, says that actions such as the bombing of Dresen would, forthwith, be considered war crimes.
Hiroshima is more interesting (if you will excuse the rather callous phrase) because the was the argumet that, in the wake of the mass suicides on Iwo Jima using the atomic bomb on the city actually saved more Japanese civilian lives than it took.
But even in that instance, using it as a justification for anything today implies it would be acceptable for a power today to make first use of a nuclear weapon for strategic purposes. Which would certainly be considered a war crime. So I am not convinced Topping has thought this through very carefully.
I have thought it through very carefully indeed. Post the firebombing of Dresden the victors said ok no more firebombing which will henceforth be a war crime. Do you see how arbitrary that is. They carried out the firebombing and then, like an ex-smoker, went all holier than thou to say actually you can't firebomb people anymore. We've done it and now decided no one can do it.
Because they were by that time in a position when they didn't need to do it. But when they did need to do it they did it. And I'm sure they weren't thinking about the 1750BC statute on war crimes when they did so.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
well if it was it didnt work out well for him.
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
I definitely got the impression, by the end, that he meant it. He went into such detail
I will not forget the comment when he claimed the Nazis built “swimming pools” for the inmates at Auschwitz
It really was his "specialist" subject after Psephology.
@RodCrosby was before my time (and Leon's, strangely) but if his comments on his second 'specialist' subject are anything to go by his expertise on psephology might be suspect.
No, that was the weirdest thing. He was absolutely super sharp on polling, modelling polling etc. I had conversations with him on here and in private where I asked him technical questions about his models, the academic research behind them, and he really really knew his stuff. He was "money balling" politics with computer models before most sports teams.
Which made his absolutely blindspot (that doesn't really do it justice) over the Holocaust just bizarre.
Yes: just as, because someone knows a lot about one thing we shouldn't assume they know a lot about all things - just because someone is egregiously wrong about one thing we shouldn't assume they are egregiously wrong about everything.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
I always took it to be trolling on his part.
Sadly not.
Indeed.
Crosby was an odious antisemite and, regarding his ‘insights’, got a lot of predictions wrong. Not that his ‘insights’ have any bearing on the fact he was a holocaust-denier who polluted this forum with his abhorrent nudge, nudge, wink, wink
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
That has been a huge debate on Twitter (and it is still rumbling on). There have been some quite hideous comments by Hamas apologists saying “oh only five babies were beheaded the rest were shot” or “they only cut the throats of the babies and anyway its racist to suggest all Arabs are beheaders”
(These are real statements)
Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace.
So is Christianity - what with turning the cheek and martyrdom and all that.
Not many Christians in this conflict
There will be dead Christians on both sides of the border - Palestinian Christians in Gaza and Christian tourists / settlers in Israel.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
That was my point and I'm glad we agree. @boulay was telling me that there have been war crimes since 1750BC via 1864 and a week last Thursday. I don't disagree but they are problematic in concept because when you have to win a war you have to win a war and you will, as Dresden and Hiroshima attest, do just about anything you believe you have to to do so.
The fact that afterwards or even before they were deemed war crimes is irrelevant. Do you ignore laws and treaties? No you try not to but as I mentioned, there is no point saying well at least I followed the rules as German forces march up through Kent towards London.
It is unclear the degree to which the bombing of Dresden did aid the Allied war effort. Targeting bombing at the enemy military and infrastructure is probably much more effective than attacking civilian targets. Many view Nazi Germany's decision to switch to targeting civilian targets in the Blitz as being part of why they lost the Battle of Britain.
And the idea that the Blitz would lower British moral seemed to have the opposite effect. Indeed, I think most evidence is that terror bombing does not scare the target into submission and instead makes them more likely to dig in.
"In emails to Mr Eden, which the journalist shared on Twitter, Mr Coren told him: 'You are a despicable disgusting piece of s**t. You're a lying conniving c**t. I hope you f***ing rot in hell'."
In my twenty years of experiencing housing market dysfunction in the UK - and having heard every excuse under the sun, from evil landlords, to greedy foreigners, to lazy councils, to selfish nimbys - the essential issue is that Britain doesn’t zone enough space for housing.
Such zones do not need to be new land area. They could, and in the main should, be “up”, as Auckland has done successfully in the last several years.
But we need to mandate zoning and area plans for every local authority, and strong design codes as well.
And then after that, we need the planning system to let people get on with it, instead of strangling them with a thousand petty rules and a thousand opportunities for people object.
"They could, and in the main should, be “up”,"
A significant issue is that the British 'dream' is not a flat in a tall tower block. It is a detached or semi-detached house with garage and a garden. Hence that is what builders try to build, squeezing as many such houses onto as small a plot as possible.
It is a situation made worse by the tower block disasters of the 1960s and 1970s, reinforced by Grenfell and access to gardens during Covid lockdowns.
Perhaps this should change; but good luck with that.
Unless and until leasehold is abolished, flats will remain deeply undesirable.
On the hook for limitless service charges and major works, often overseen by crooked management companies, either padding invoices or simply purely on the take, and the only redress a wholly inadequate, expensive and time consuming "tribunal" process that allows the freeholder to tack their legal fees onto your service charges, even if you win!
All this without actually owning a single brick.
If you want people to want flats, abolish leasehold.
Clearly with a house the brickwork & bits you don't live in are part of the house. How would you propose to sort common areas in flat blocks ? When you buy a flat you gain 1/40th (Say if there are 40 flats in the block) of the common area freehold ?
It's called commonhold, and it's what works in literally every other country in the world. At the moment, as a leaseholder, you have no say at all in what gets repaired, or when, or by who. Naturally, freeholders and managing agents are more inclined towards contracts that favour them, rather than provide leaseholders with value for money.
No other country has this system.
Here's an example of a managing agent literally fabricating a bill, which the leaseholders had to go to court over.
Oh, and by the way, even after that blatant rip off, you still can't change the freeholder/managing agent... so next time they try it on (and they will) you have to go through the whole thing again.
One particularly common practice that has been allowed for years (well, forever, but has been going on for years since someone invented the scam) was for the managing agent to find the most expensive insurer for the block, and take a "commission" i.e. kickback from the insurer for going with them. Banned by the FCA two weeks ago, but there are myriad scams just like this.
These are practices almost exclusive to the leasehold system, because under every other system, there's a clear mechanism for both redress, and for flat owners to remove the managing agent. In the UK, because of the leasehold system, the process for both is convoluted, lengthy, expensive, and in many cases impossible (e.g. if the block contains foreign owners who cannot be contacted, you cannot enact right to manage).
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
When Israel was founded, I can understand that feeling. Now, as the primary beneficiary of the world's only existing superpowers military largesse and political hegemonic power, no. If they believe it is an existential war it is only because they have propagandised it so to themselves. And I don't think those in the Israeli government do even view it as an existential war, because if you want a sure fire way to guarantee the entire Middle East will never normalise relations with you and may even go to war with you, start doing a genocide in Gaza.
On October 7 more Jews died than on any other day since the Holocaust. What’s more, nearly all of them were civilians - from tiny babies butchered in their cribs to 85 year old women shot in the head
I don’t lightly accuse someone of anti-Semitism but your inability to see how this impacts the Jewish psyche is alarming. I’ll leave it there
When talking about Israel going to war or committing war crimes it is important to note that Israel is a state - it does not represent Jewishness or Jewish people.
It is, explicitly, a Jewish State.
That's what all the fuss and bother is about.
That doesn't mean every Jewish person accepts that. Catholicism would claim to be the one true Christianity - so what?
Indeed. England (UK?) is explicitly an Anglican Protestant state. I don't accept that in my name, in fact I think its moronic and reject the concept unreservedly
Enfranchising people who are implicitly enemies of the state is surely asking for trouble though?
Why are those people enemies of the state? People seem to think that Palestinian dislike of Israel is somehow inherently based in anti-Semitism, when a much clearer position is that, yes anti-Semitism exists in their culture and always has done, the main reason for the conflict is that one state (Israel) has complete control over them and uses that control to do them harm.
I think people look at Israel as a Jewish state and therefore see all conflict with their neighbours as rooted in that - which is a very very large generalisation. The conflict between Israel and neighbouring states could, and arguably is, be as easily explained by the fact it is a colonialist settler project that was forced on the Arab nations against their will by Europeans, many to be the home of secular Jewish (and later more religious Jewish) people. A state that would clearly share more in common geopolitically with the Western powers in an area where those powers had recently been in charge of the entire region and treated them awfully.
Again, does anti-Semitism play a part? Yes.
But to put all of this down to Jewishness versus Islamist is to ignore the material and geopolitical reality.
When people say they hate Jews and want to wipe them out (and Middle Eastern anti-semitism long predates Israel) I think Jews are entitled to believe them.
Perhaps this current conflict could have been avoided had the Ottomans and British authorities simply mandated that no Jew should ever be allowed to settle in Palestine, but I think that would be hard to defend on ethical groudns.-
European people conflate Jewish and Israeli all the time - when you live in Gaza I can see why that would happen more than in most places. And like I said, I am sure that anti-Semitism plays a role in it. But before there was a state of Israel there were also large numbers of mixed communities where Jewish people lived in harmony with the local people there; indeed many who fled European anti-Semitism, pogroms and the Holocaust, went to the holy land. Was it perfect, no, nowhere is, but they did live together.
The issue of partition, with a specific state for Jewish Israelis and a specific state for Palestinian Arabs, is when the modern conflict arose. People do not like being displaced from their land and told to live elsewhere, and other countries don't like new neighbours who will have more in common with an opposing geopolitical block than them.
I was going to point out that this isn't correct but @bondegezou beat me to it.
My grandfather was one of the soldiers sent out to keep the peace during this one:
It is worth remembering that violence peaked just at the time of Munich, with the net result Chamberlain had to be aware ten per cent of his army would be unable to fight in Europe if he went to war.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
That has been a huge debate on Twitter (and it is still rumbling on). There have been some quite hideous comments by Hamas apologists saying “oh only five babies were beheaded the rest were shot” or “they only cut the throats of the babies and anyway its racist to suggest all Arabs are beheaders”
(These are real statements)
Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace.
So is Christianity - what with turning the cheek and martyrdom and all that.
Not many Christians in this conflict
There will be dead Christians on both sides of the border - Palestinian Christians in Gaza and Christian tourists / settlers in Israel.
Theyre the collateral damage not the protagonists.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
I have long noted that "might makes right" because it so often does. I was criticised by many on here for saying that Russia learned from the US that yes you can just march into a sovereign nation if you have the military wherewithal to do so which was no more or less than an acknowledgement (and certainly not a value judgement) that the world operates on "might makes right".
What Russia failed to learn was you buy the UN and any key voting members off first before you legitimise your action through them.
I mean I am a fan of people taking the knee. A visible action against racism, of which there continues to be a fuckload at footie matches and which was beyond endemic in times gone by.
Equally it gives me great pleasure to see a typical PL footie match wherein there is a united nations of races, creeds, colours (not sexuality yet but I'm sure it is coming) and I believe the game is truly colour blind. You only have to see celebrations after a goal to confirm this at least amongst the players.
However, the pickle that the FA and indeed all football clubs finds itself in wrt Israel/Gaza is as a consequence of these gestures.
Like you I have no issue with taking the knee. It’s a harmless gesture against racism and helps raise awareness so where’s the downside ?
Soccer is also happy to have players wear rainbow laces. Again. No problem there.
When people complained about the taking of the knee or the laces the FA and twitterati were quick to condemn. They’re silent now a and this silence shames them.
They’ve made a major error here. They have a chance to rectify it. They need to do it ASAP.
Their reasoning is clear. They don’t want to offend the sort of people who believe 6MWNE.
Possibly. But I suspect they also fear it might 'provoke' attacks against Jews.
6MWNE is obviously a problem but there are a whole more who don't believe it ever happened.
I don't think there's anyone who believes the Holocaust never happened.
Those who claim it just enjoy trolling Jews and/or recognise that the Holocaust is bad PR for their cause. But, the know full well that it happened, and they think it was a good thing.
I'll never forget seeing a discussion in 2004 on another forum where I became of the concept of Holocaust minimisation.
Apparently when you factor in the hype, and the gays and other undesirables only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust which apparently is fine because it wasn't as bad as other genocides like the Great Leap Forward or some of Stalin's worst excesses or slightly worse than the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a post on Twitter responding to someone making the point they beheaded babies ‘not all of the babies were beheaded’
Hamas committed terrible atrocities which everyone condemns without thrneed to exaggerate and extrapolate to 40 babies beheaded.
It was a terror attack carried out by evil people but making stuff up is just stupid a bit like the Iraq WMD bollocks
Worth noting the claim was never 40 babies beheaded, it was that in one community they found 40 dead babies of which some had been beheaded.
And of course it isn't just the alleged beheading, its the rape, the torture, the burning and burying of people to their deaths. That is why the Biden etc are comparing Hamas actions to ISIS, as this all the stuff they did in Syria / Iraq, finding the most barbaric ways to kill people, film it with real enjoyment e.g.
Hamas terrorists 'raped girls over their friends' bodies' as they carried out 'a second Holocaust', British family members of Israeli captives seized by gunmen alleged today at a London press conference.
I am old enough to remember when Israel was being pressed to give up land for peace. Well it did that in Gaza. It gave up land. It removed the settlers. And what it got in return was Hamas and rockets and now massacres.
Israel has made many mistakes over the years. Netanyahu is unquestionably the wrong leader for it, especially at such a time. I fear that an invasion of Gaza now will be a strategic error and lead to all sorts of casualties for the innocent.
But the Palestinians have consistently made huge errors, the biggest one of all being their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel and the killing of every Jew everywhere - not just in Israel. This is explicitly genocidal. There is no negotiation with such a movement. Eliminating it is the only answer. Just as we sought to eliminate Nazism and ISIS and other similar genocidal movements.
Those who worry about what happens next need to provide an alternative to Israel, one that will not make that country prey to genocidal maniacs. Lots of people are willing to speak hard truths to Israel about obeying the laws of war and civilian deaths and the rest of it. Very few are telling Hamas that it is their genocidal ideology which has brought Gaza to the point it is, that it is their deliberate policy of hiding amongst civilians which is putting Palestinians at risk, it is their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist which means there is not the remotest hope of starting any peace talks.
There is plenty of pressure which needs putting on Israel but Hamas must first be eliminated. It cannot - until it changes what it wants - be a player. It has taken itself outside the universe of civilised decency. So if invasion of Gaza is not the solution, what is? And if we don't have an alternative solution, then we can hardly be surprised if Israel does what it thinks necessary to save itself. What would we do were we in their position?
I sometimes feel that commentators are unwilling to provide or even begin to think about what an alternative might be because - after all the condemnations of Hamas - they give up at expecting anything better from the Palestinians and it is, after all, so much easier and more comfortable to revert to criticising Israel.
I was saying something similar the other day. Gaza allows itself to be ruled by Hamas. It does this in the knowledge that Hamas is committed to the death of all Jews. The murderous assaults came from their territory and seem to have been a source of glee.
I fully get that the residents of Gaza have a terrible life, that they are economically repressed by Israel and made to beg for water and electricity. Israel’s policies have been unenlightened at best and self harming all too often. If I lived in Gaza I would hate the Israeli government and want to resist that oppression.
But if you want to be listened to, if you want things to change, you do not start with the beheading of babies because they are Jews.
It is 17 years since there was an election in Gaza. 17 years during which Hamas has done it's best to kill anyone who actively opposes them. The Palestinians there 'allow' themselves to be ruled by Hamas about as much as the inhabitants of Kabul 'allow' themselves to be ruled by the Taliban.
Or the Germans "allowed" themselves to be ruled by Hitler. Good point.
What is amusing is that I suspect you and I regard that comment in very different ways.
I regard it in a very simple way, Richard. According to Israel the country is at war. You may disagree and we can discuss the difference between a terrorist act and an act of war. Israel, as one of the belligerents, thinks it is war. An existential one, to boot. If it is war then it is war.
I would be very interested to know how you regard that comment.
I agree. Israel is at war. And I do not even think discussing whose fault it might be in the long term changes anything there.
The difference appears to be that you think that being at war means that Israel are allowed to do anything they like to the Palestinian population and sod the consequences. You are one of those who quote, either directly or by inference, a war that ended 78 years ago in defence of this idea.
I believe that, partly as a result of what happened during that war, the world has rightly moved on and certain actions are now considered no longer acceptable even in war and are legally proscribed as such. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whether by intent or negligence, is one of thoise things. This is the case whether we believe the faiult lies entirely with Israel, entirely with the Palestinians or with a mixture of the two.
I think the issue here is that we are not used to existential wars. We have wars with limited aims and at the end of them the Americans bug out. Er, I mean at the end of them either one side wins, or there is a working negotiated settlement, or the matter is resolved one way or another.
Israel believes that it is in an existential war, just like we did 80 years ago (and hence my Godwin). In an existential war there is no merit in saying well we lost but at least we played by the (new, victor-imposed) rules. Losing equals annihilation.
And hence under those circumstances I am prepared, as you might have noticed from my various posts on the subject, to cut Israel quite a bit of slack. You often mention the use of white phosphorous by Israel, a horrible weapon. But again, and here we go back to WWII, and our own existential war, firebombing of German cities was seen as a legitimate act of war.
And no longer is under any circumstances. We were a signatory in 1949 to the 4th Geneva Convention and we were clear that it applied to us as much as anyone else. Under those laws that we keep purporting to support and try to impose on others, firebombing cities is no longer a legitimate act. Just like the use of chemical weapons or the murder of POWs.
Using the acts of the Allies 80 years ago as support for the current actions of countries is not a defendable argument.
You are speaking from the safety and security of a country that, please Odin, will never again face an existential threat. Israel does not believe it is in that position.
Signatories to this, that, or the other is meaningless. Of course we signed any old document in 1949 as we were at the peak of our powers and had just won a world war. That is not to say that Israel has chucked the Geneva Convention out of the window, according to news reports. Do you think that Israel as we speak is ignoring it? How difficult do you think it would be for Israel literally to level Gaza in an afternoon? Not very is my guess and Gaza is still standing.
The "rules of war" are a logical impossibility. I'm not going to roll out the "if your family were...." type of analogies but none of us can really understand what an existential war means and what you might be prepared to do if you were engaged in one.
Rules of war date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi in 1750BC. The Torah/Old Testament puts forth rules of war, for another early example.
The UK signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It is notable that the belligerents held to some rules of war, to some extent, through both World War I and World War II. The UK signed up to all four Geneva Conventions (adopted 1864, 1929 and 1949). Much of the modern conception of war crimes goes back to the 1945 London charter. War crimes have been incorporated into UK domestic law.
War crimes are almost inevitable in any major conflict, but we can reduce them. Most countries most of the time make some effort to follow the rules of war. It is ahistorical nonsense to act as if rules of war are only recent or unworkable.
So was the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima a war crime under the 1750BC statute?
You keep bringing up Dresden and Hiroshima as if people don't view them as war crimes - lots of people, including historians, do. It just happened to be that the UK and the USA were on the winning side of that conflict and did not do any self reflection about that. Your position essentially boils down to "might makes right" - the winner decides what a war crime is and once that's done and dusted you move on.
And of course post war the UK and US have signed up to a treaty that, without postdating it, says that actions such as the bombing of Dresen would, forthwith, be considered war crimes.
Hiroshima is more interesting (if you will excuse the rather callous phrase) because the was the argumet that, in the wake of the mass suicides on Iwo Jima using the atomic bomb on the city actually saved more Japanese civilian lives than it took.
But even in that instance, using it as a justification for anything today implies it would be acceptable for a power today to make first use of a nuclear weapon for strategic purposes. Which would certainly be considered a war crime. So I am not convinced Topping has thought this through very carefully.
But, if I found myself in the same position as Truman, then war crime or no, I'd authorise the use of the bomb.
Comments
I think people look at Israel as a Jewish state and therefore see all conflict with their neighbours as rooted in that - which is a very very large generalisation. The conflict between Israel and neighbouring states could, and arguably is, be as easily explained by the fact it is a colonialist settler project that was forced on the Arab nations against their will by Europeans, many to be the home of secular Jewish (and later more religious Jewish) people. A state that would clearly share more in common geopolitically with the Western powers in an area where those powers had recently been in charge of the entire region and treated them awfully.
Again, does anti-Semitism play a part? Yes.
But to put all of this down to Jewishness versus Islamist is to ignore the material and geopolitical reality.
Rishi Sunak has lost control of the prison system.
He is letting violent criminals walk free.
He is letting Britain down.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1712419231218724941/photo/1
But not the UUP, TUV or Alba.
The Telegraph Ukraine podcast had an interesting interview with a UN human rights rapporteur recently where they discussed the cluster munitions issue, and the UN person wasn't happy about their use, but they have Ukraine credit for talking to them about it and for taking steps to minimise the risk (e.g. record-keeping of where they use them) and they contrasted that with the Russian refusal to talk to them.
I think you can draw, and I think the person from the UN did draw, a distinction between one side that is trying to keep to the rules of war, and another side that isn't.
Pretty easy to see which sides those are in the Israel-Gaza conflict.
As I remember it, she got quite a lot of flack from the Democrats' left for being somewhat conservative.
But yes, also a lot of flack a man probably would not have received.
They're all utterly cringeworthy. So naturally enough, I've left them out for my son to read...
Perhaps this current conflict could have been avoided had the Ottomans and British authorities simply mandated that no Jew should ever be allowed to settle in Palestine, but I think that would be hard to defend on ethical groudns.-
He genuinely did not believe the Holocaust happened: in the end it got him banned
It’s a shame as I communicated with him privately after his ban and he came across as wry, clever, sensitive and super well informed about elections. He just had this one massive psychic glitch. It happens
What do you think ALL means?
More curiously, I also have Harold Pinter's secondary school report. It's a long story, but I will recount it if here if there is a wish, or privately otherwise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/67049864
Shame because he had some of the best politcal insights on PB
VAR3rd Umpire messes up again(These are real statements)
We should condemn the targeting of all civilian life, no matter who does it.
Means exactly that and is spot on.
I will not forget the comment when he claimed the Nazis built “swimming pools” for the inmates at Auschwitz
Joe had rather less success with me.
New from Premier League: “The Premier League is shocked and saddened by the escalating crisis in Israel and Gaza, and strongly condemns the horrific and brutal acts of violence against innocent civilians.”
Silence and armbands at the next games
https://x.com/RobHarris/status/1712465284517568616?s=20
The Western media are liars to report that she was murdered, when she was only kidnapped, tortured, had her limbs broken, shot through the head, and exhibited naked.
The issue of partition, with a specific state for Jewish Israelis and a specific state for Palestinian Arabs, is when the modern conflict arose. People do not like being displaced from their land and told to live elsewhere, and other countries don't like new neighbours who will have more in common with an opposing geopolitical block than them.
Or are you just saying that it is justified now and in the past?
I am feeling less sympathetic than 24 hours ago. Industrial-strategy-assault happens on a battlefield strewn with straw men:
https://twitter.com/Gilesyb/status/1712050737881006444
The fact that afterwards or even before they were deemed war crimes is irrelevant. Do you ignore laws and treaties? No you try not to but as I mentioned, there is no point saying well at least I followed the rules as German forces march up through Kent towards London.
I shan’t link. I don’t even need to describe it
Hiroshima is more interesting (if you will excuse the rather callous phrase) because the was the argumet that, in the wake of the mass suicides on Iwo Jima using the atomic bomb on the city actually saved more Japanese civilian lives than it took.
But even in that instance, using it as a justification for anything today implies it would be acceptable for a power today to make first use of a nuclear weapon for strategic purposes. Which would certainly be considered a war crime. So I am not convinced Topping has thought this through very carefully.
Warning: a two hour history video (it's essentially a podcast, because the video does nothing but show pictures and quotes, but still, two hours)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go
Six of the 89 incidents were physical assaults, three involved damage to Jewish property, 14 were direct threats, with 66 cases of abusive behavior including 22 online.
Among the incidents the CST reported was an Orthodox Jewish man on a London bus approached by a man in his 40s, who hit him in the face and tried to take his hat, a religious symbol.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-sees-huge-jump-in-antisemitic-incidents-after-hamas-attack/
I am always cautious when they then report the "percentage increase" as it is difficult to separate out if it is really an increase or rather people being much keener to report these incidents or perhaps due to increased tensions and fear they determine certain incidents as definitely a racist incident when it is not the root cause of it e.g. we have had infamous cases of claims of certain things were definitely an Islamophobic revenge incident and we later find out that all involved are scumbag criminals, beefing over criminality.
If they did not listen (I hope they did and have support for their action), they are putting themselves in the same position as the Govt "CLOSE THE TICKET OFFICES" Diktat to the rail organisations, and that has earned the Govt a 100k+ petition and two Judicial Reviews *, so far - just with added weasel words.
* One of the people involved is Doug Paulley, who was the person who won a legal action to make the rail industry accept that Rail Replacement Buses should be accessible, and another one that wheelchair users have a legal right to first priority on use of wheelchair spaces on buses (which was half a victory, the following problem is making bus drivers accept it in practice - they often do nothing if Karen has put her pushchair there and refuses to move it, so the wheelchair user gets left at the bus stop).
Hamas published a video showing their members digging up water pipes and converting them to fire rockets at Israel.
https://twitter.com/GLNoronha/status/1712456802531491947
Apparently the white house has rowed back on this since.
But it was like a tic, he simply couldn't stop himself.
Not my problem if you want to claim all exclude Israelis it clearly doesn't
I remember the bans he got and the moderators telling him not to go there
It's entirely fanciful to suggest that they're going to give that up, so, however problematic one might view partition, it's something we do have to work with.
Which made his absolutely blindspot (that doesn't really do it justice) over the Holocaust just bizarre.
Hamas committed terrible atrocities which everyone condemns without thrneed to exaggerate and extrapolate to 40 babies beheaded.
It was a terror attack carried out by evil people but making stuff up is just stupid a bit like the Iraq WMD bollocks
But in the 19th and 20th centuries, as Arab nationalism came to prominence, you increasingly saw the blood libel being alleged, and pogroms being conducted in the Middle East. The creation of a State which (on its initial boundaries) was twice the size of Devon, comes nowhere close to explain the outpouring of Jew-hatred in Arab lands.
Because they were by that time in a position when they didn't need to do it. But when they did need to do it they did it. And I'm sure they weren't thinking about the 1750BC statute on war crimes when they did so.
A: micro-economists are wrong about specific things, while macro-economists are wrong about things in general.
Crosby was an odious antisemite and, regarding his ‘insights’, got a lot of predictions wrong. Not that his ‘insights’ have any bearing on the fact he was a holocaust-denier who polluted this forum with his abhorrent nudge, nudge, wink, wink
"In emails to Mr Eden, which the journalist shared on Twitter, Mr Coren told him: 'You are a despicable disgusting piece of s**t. You're a lying conniving c**t. I hope you f***ing rot in hell'."
You may also notice that 'innocent' is only applied to Palestinians.
You should really stop standing up for anti-Semites.
No other country has this system.
Here's an example of a managing agent literally fabricating a bill, which the leaseholders had to go to court over.
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/we-just-made-it-up-landlord-sees-81-reduction-in-intercom-system-costs-at-st-davids-square-that-it-cannot-account-for-and-is-leased-for-eternity/
Oh, and by the way, even after that blatant rip off, you still can't change the freeholder/managing agent... so next time they try it on (and they will) you have to go through the whole thing again.
One particularly common practice that has been allowed for years (well, forever, but has been going on for years since someone invented the scam) was for the managing agent to find the most expensive insurer for the block, and take a "commission" i.e. kickback from the insurer for going with them. Banned by the FCA two weeks ago, but there are myriad scams just like this.
These are practices almost exclusive to the leasehold system, because under every other system, there's a clear mechanism for both redress, and for flat owners to remove the managing agent. In the UK, because of the leasehold system, the process for both is convoluted, lengthy, expensive, and in many cases impossible (e.g. if the block contains foreign owners who cannot be contacted, you cannot enact right to manage).
My grandfather was one of the soldiers sent out to keep the peace during this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
It is worth remembering that violence peaked just at the time of Munich, with the net result Chamberlain had to be aware ten per cent of his army would be unable to fight in Europe if he went to war.
And of course it isn't just the alleged beheading, its the rape, the torture, the burning and burying of people to their deaths. That is why the Biden etc are comparing Hamas actions to ISIS, as this all the stuff they did in Syria / Iraq, finding the most barbaric ways to kill people, film it
with real enjoyment e.g.
Hamas terrorists 'raped girls over their friends' bodies' as they carried out 'a second Holocaust', British family members of Israeli captives seized by gunmen alleged today at a London press conference.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12623023/Israeli-girls-raped-friends-bodies-Hamas-terrorists-carried-second-Holocaust-British-relatives-reveal-condemn-celebrated-atrocities-Gaza-Iran-London.html