We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
My prediction is that no party gets above 40% of the vote.
A winner could even come in at under 30% according to the seat polling. I don't know we'll get quite that low, but it could very easily be closer to 30% than 40%.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
"He kept his houses stupendously warm so his lovers could lie naked on the floor."
I hope he had plush carpet, as that can seriously hurt. The remake of The Thomas Crown Affair has Pierce Brosnan making love to Rene Russo on a marble staircase, and all one could think of was "Lord that must be killing her back. At least get her a cushion."
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
"He kept his houses stupendously warm so his lovers could lie naked on the floor."
I hope he had plush carpet, as that can seriously hurt. The remake of The Thomas Crown Affair has Pierce Brosnan making love to Rene Russo on a marble staircase, and all one could think of was "Lord that must be killing her back. At least get her a cushion."
The clear implication of that tendentious, scurrilous article is that Keir Starmer HAS had two ribs removed, so that he can more easily fellate himself - it’s just that everyone is too scared to say it
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Yes, the implication about Starmer and his bizarre auto-fellation is there but the Spectator is cleverly tip-toeing around the libel lawyers, I suspect
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I find those odds surprising. Sometimes the odds at this stage are a good predictor (as with Rutherglen); sometimes they’re not. Of course, it is the punter’s job to work out which is which!
I have not had the time to follow the betting closely enough and haven’t bet anything myself. Had I, I’d be tempted to lay Con and bet LD at those odds, although I don’t think I’d dare to put big amounts down in either case. I’m sure some of you managed to lay the LDs when they were shorter and be green on them now. Congrats if so.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
I find those odds surprising. Sometimes the odds at this stage are a good predictor (as with Rutherglen); sometimes they’re not. Of course, it is the punter’s job to work out which is which!
I have not had the time to follow the betting closely enough and haven’t bet anything myself. Had I, I’d be tempted to lay Con and bet LD at those odds, although I don’t think I’d dare to put big amounts down in either case. I’m sure some of you managed to lay the LDs when they were shorter and be green on them now. Congrats if so.
I'm green on Lab and Liberals with the latter the bigger win. Red on Tory. Green on the indepedent chap who there was some interest in at one point.
Can’t really be genocide if as one PBer was asserting most of the deaths caused by Israel in north Gaza are Hamas. Meanwhile Israel is also hitting south Gaza, the place they so generously offered as a refuge for fleeing civilians. I guess most of the hundred dead must also be Hamas.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Who, in the name of the Almighty, even thought of doing that?
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Who, in the name of the Almighty, even thought of doing that?
Well, Keir Starmer definitely didn’t. There is no way he would have two ribs surgically removed so he could pleasure himself orally. He was Director of Public Prosecutions for God’s sake. It’s ridiculous. He wouldn’t even have one rib removed, not any ribs. I doubt if he’s even tried auto-fellatio - he’s a senior lawyer
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Who, in the name of the Almighty, even thought of doing that?
Allegedly the artist formerly known as Eadric Prince...
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2h This is an example of how bonkers the Tory strategy is at the moment. You do not brief “we’re going to hold both seats”. You brief “we’ll keep fighting, but it’s tough”. It’s basic political expectation management.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Yes, the implication about Starmer and his bizarre auto-fellation is there but the Spectator is cleverly tip-toeing around the libel lawyers, I suspect
It’s quite a bombshell revelation
At the risk of fellating the author, that was a cracking read. I'm familiar with D'Annuzio but not to that extent, and for some reason I often confuse his stories with Julius Evola, another nasty piece of work who was as intelligent as he was artistic as he was fascistic. I do wonder what it was about Italy at that time that could create people whose job descriptions was effectively "Poet, painter, philosopher, fascist".
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Who, in the name of the Almighty, even thought of doing that?
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech.
On topic - my view was that the Tories had been underpriced in Mid Beds for a while. Evens is probably about right.
Managed to have a nibble on them at 2/1 a week or so ago which I think I mentioned on here as value at the time (this was after viewing it as a no-bet for a while as it's such a weird by-election). Hopefully a few of us here will make a couple of quid out of it.
In passing, it will make a persuasive example for any sort of Lib-Lab electoral pact.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Who, in the name of the Almighty, even thought of doing that?
Allegedly the artist formerly known as Eadric Prince...
Supposedly Brian 'Marilyn Manson' Warner, and no doubt a fair few other folk as well. I seriously doubt it has ever happened.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
148grss, go read my posts in recent days on PB. Ask yourself, is Bondegezou someone who rushes to defend Israeli action and ignores the Palestinians’ plight?
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
"He kept his houses stupendously warm so his lovers could lie naked on the floor."
I hope he had plush carpet, as that can seriously hurt. The remake of The Thomas Crown Affair has Pierce Brosnan making love to Rene Russo on a marble staircase, and all one could think of was "Lord that must be killing her back. At least get her a cushion."
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Who, in the name of the Almighty, even thought of doing that?
Allegedly the artist formerly known as Eadric Prince...
Supposedly Brian 'Marilyn Manson' Warner, and no doubt a fair few other folk as well. I seriously doubt it has ever happened.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
Genocide has a clear legal definition. This is a siege. One can argue it is cruel and inhumane. One can argue that Israel is in breach of international law by preventing the delivery of food and medicines (although Israel has no legal obligation to *provide* food and medicines or power) , but if this is "genocide" then every siege is genocide.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
Ian Dunt @IanDunt Largely unfussed by this [Beds poll predictions]. There just aren't that many seats where Labour and the Lib Dems will get in each other's way. And a Tory win would sharpen minds about how they both approach the general election.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
Thanks for the link. The first few lines are better than the subsequent 100. The reductio ad absurdam dilutes your point although I'm sure that many Speccie readers will try to fellate themselves, with a full complement of ribs, at some of his exploits.
I've read an awful lot on here, and elsewhere, about Mid-Bedfordshire, but hardly anything about Tamworth. Is that just because Tamworth is so dire that nobody goes there? I see that Labour are the bookies' clear favourites there, but I'm not sure why. Is that just because the LDs aren't in the game?
On the same note, I receive daily emails from Labour asking for help in Mid-Beds, but again, nothing on Tamworth. So, either Labour thinks it's in the bag, or they've given up. Does anybody know what's going on in Tamworth, and why there's such an apparent lack of interest?
Ian Dunt @IanDunt Largely unfussed by this [Beds poll predictions]. There just aren't that many seats where Labour and the Lib Dems will get in each other's way. And a Tory win would sharpen minds about how they both approach the general election.
They don't need any pact, informal or otherwise. Neither party is overblessed with infinite resource. They will target their resources on the seats where they can win.
Ian Dunt @IanDunt Largely unfussed by this [Beds poll predictions]. There just aren't that many seats where Labour and the Lib Dems will get in each other's way. And a Tory win would sharpen minds about how they both approach the general election.
He reckons? If they are so congenitally stupid to fail to see the pitfalls of the 'All Must Win Prizes' approach at a by-election, what on Earth makes him think they'll see the errors of their ways at a general election?
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
I've read an awful lot on here, and elsewhere, about Mid-Bedfordshire, but hardly anything about Tamworth. Is that just because Tamworth is so dire that nobody goes there? I see that Labour are the bookies' clear favourites there, but I'm not sure why. Is that just because the LDs aren't in the game?
On the same note, I receive daily emails from Labour asking for help in Mid-Beds, but again, nothing on Tamworth. So, either Labour thinks it's in the bag, or they've given up. Does anybody know what's going on in Tamworth, and why there's such an apparent lack of interest?
Labour are the obvious challengers in Tamworth. They need a humongous swing to win it, but by-elections often deliver humongous swings.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
Genocide has a clear legal definition. This is a siege. One can argue it is cruel and inhumane. One can argue that Israel is in breach of international law by preventing the delivery of food and medicines (although Israel has no legal obligation to *provide* food and medicines or power) , but if this is "genocide" then every siege is genocide.
You're right, it does have a clear legal definition. Do I trust some rando on the internet to get that clear definition over a scholar in Holocaust and genocides, who specialises in modern genocides?
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
I've read an awful lot on here, and elsewhere, about Mid-Bedfordshire, but hardly anything about Tamworth. Is that just because Tamworth is so dire that nobody goes there? I see that Labour are the bookies' clear favourites there, but I'm not sure why. Is that just because the LDs aren't in the game?
On the same note, I receive daily emails from Labour asking for help in Mid-Beds, but again, nothing on Tamworth. So, either Labour thinks it's in the bag, or they've given up. Does anybody know what's going on in Tamworth, and why there's such an apparent lack of interest?
Yes, I'm trying ascertain whether Tories are VALUE there, at a good notch over 3.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
Erm
bondegezou has been one of those arguing exactly what we have been arguing as far as Israel overstepping the mark is concerned. I have seen nothing that could be considerd a defence of current or past Israeli attitudes or actions as far as Palestinian civilians are concerned.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
Genocide has a clear legal definition. This is a siege. One can argue it is cruel and inhumane. One can argue that Israel is in breach of international law by preventing the delivery of food and medicines (although Israel has no legal obligation to *provide* food and medicines or power) , but if this is "genocide" then every siege is genocide.
You're right, it does have a clear legal definition. Do I trust some rando on the internet to get that clear definition over a scholar in Holocaust and genocides, who specialises in modern genocides?
At the risk of making your head explode there is an analogy with foxhunting. The Burns Enquiry did not say that foxhunting is cruel when the report was precisely the time to say it was if it was. Equally, the bloke* on the radio yesterday, said that the rules of war had been broken but refused to say that war crimes had been committed. Hence we can't say that foxhunting is cruel nor that there have been war crimes. Yet.
*Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
Thanks for the link. The first few lines are better than the subsequent 100. The reductio ad absurdam dilutes your point although I'm sure that many Speccie readers will try to fellate themselves, with a full complement of ribs, at some of his exploits.
Still glad I gave up the subscription.
My point? I didn’t write this libellous, histrionic drivel
In fact I find myself - uncharacteristically - outraged on behalf of Sir Keir Starmer. The insinuation that the onetime head of the Crown Prosecution Service would have major surgery so as to enable him to fellate himself is not only shocking, but seems completely groundless. Where is the evidence? There is none. Just sly innuendo
It also fails the historical test. How many Labour leaders of the past have had important bones removed so they can pleasure themselves by mouth? Zero. So it’s quite a departure if Starmer has done it
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
Erm
bondegezou has been one of those arguing exactly what we have been arguing as far as Israel overstepping the mark is concerned. I have seen nothing that could be considerd a defence of current or past Israeli attitudes or actions as far as Palestinian civilians are concerned.
When these threads become conversations with multiple people, it is difficult to denote who says what. That question was, mainly, aimed at Sean F and others who had replied hand waving the atrocities of the state of Israel.
My position is still that it is clear that the Israeli plans of attack have genocidal intent.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
148grss, go read my posts in recent days on PB. Ask yourself, is Bondegezou someone who rushes to defend Israeli action and ignores the Palestinians’ plight?
Apologies.
When these threads become conversations with multiple people, it is difficult to denote who says what. That question was, mainly, aimed at Sean F and others who had replied hand waving the atrocities of the state of Israel.
My position is still that it is clear that the Israeli plans of attack have genocidal intent.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
Thanks for the link. The first few lines are better than the subsequent 100. The reductio ad absurdam dilutes your point although I'm sure that many Speccie readers will try to fellate themselves, with a full complement of ribs, at some of his exploits.
Still glad I gave up the subscription.
My point? I didn’t write this libellous, histrionic drivel
In fact I find myself - uncharacteristically - outraged on behalf of Sir Keir Starmer. The insinuation that the onetime head of the Crown Prosecution Service would have major surgery so as to enable him to fellate himself is not only shocking, but seems completely groundless. Where is the evidence? There is none. Just sly innuendo
It also fails the historical test. How many Labour leaders of the past have had important bones removed so they can pleasure themselves by mouth? Zero. So it’s quite a departure if Starmer has done it
I agree. It is rather outrageous. This sort of thing, well it leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth really.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
All depends on if that is just the usual sabre rattling, the "death to the west" stuff and so on, or there is something more to it.
The regime in Iran is not completely secure. They won't want to do anything to jeopardise their positions
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
He did derail Hilary Clinton's first Presidential campaign by alleging that she was a "juicer."
I recall a former contributor here, called SeanT I think, who likened the Obama/Clinton primary to a penalty shootout. He managed to get the words "Hilary", "box" and "fisting" into the same sentence.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
I imagine I am one of those you suppose would be "baws deep into vengeance". You also bemoan the lack of nuance or doubt in the "revenge" strategy.
How precious.
I have no idea what I would do, like you, if we were in Israel's position. Intellectually, I have great sympathy for what they are doing. Is it as "surgical" as some people think is possible? Probably not. Are there civilian casualties? Absolutely and I regret that.
So it comes down to a matter of degree. I'm guessing you would like Israel to stop right this minute. And I guess if I had asked you yesterday you would have liked Israel to stop this minute. And so on, perhaps back to the afternoon of October 7th, who knows.
So what was Israel to do, given that I understand the reasons that they couldn't turn the other cheek.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
148grss, go read my posts in recent days on PB. Ask yourself, is Bondegezou someone who rushes to defend Israeli action and ignores the Palestinians’ plight?
Apologies.
When these threads become conversations with multiple people, it is difficult to denote who says what. That question was, mainly, aimed at Sean F and others who had replied hand waving the atrocities of the state of Israel.
My position is still that it is clear that the Israeli plans of attack have genocidal intent.
You do realise that, to some, merely even criticising the actions of the Israeli government is anti-semitic.
Can’t really be genocide if as one PBer was asserting most of the deaths caused by Israel in north Gaza are Hamas. Meanwhile Israel is also hitting south Gaza, the place they so generously offered as a refuge for fleeing civilians. I guess most of the hundred dead must also be Hamas.
Yeah, the chat among waiting customers today was that media coverage (damn BBC bias) was one-sided and was not telling the truth about dead Palestinian babies and starving families in Gaza.
Ian Dunt @IanDunt Largely unfussed by this [Beds poll predictions]. There just aren't that many seats where Labour and the Lib Dems will get in each other's way. And a Tory win would sharpen minds about how they both approach the general election.
He reckons? If they are so congenitally stupid to fail to see the pitfalls of the 'All Must Win Prizes' approach at a by-election, what on Earth makes him think they'll see the errors of their ways at a general election?
You can't fight a by-election type campaign (limit £100K) at a general election (limit about £20K).
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
All depends on if that is just the usual sabre rattling, the "death to the west" stuff and so on, or there is something more to it.
The regime in Iran is not completely secure. They won't want to do anything to jeopardise their positions
Unless the Iranian regime believe that a 'victory' over Israel is what their people want , and giving the people that victory would secure their regime? I have no idea what the true beliefs of Iranians in Iran is to see if that would be a deluded belief, or a valid one.
Bur regimes often see 'victory' in a war or conflict as a way to secure their positon.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
Genocide has a clear legal definition. This is a siege. One can argue it is cruel and inhumane. One can argue that Israel is in breach of international law by preventing the delivery of food and medicines (although Israel has no legal obligation to *provide* food and medicines or power) , but if this is "genocide" then every siege is genocide.
You're right, it does have a clear legal definition. Do I trust some rando on the internet to get that clear definition over a scholar in Holocaust and genocides, who specialises in modern genocides?
I have both a degree in law, and a postgraduate legal qualification. Raz Segal has not.
"Genocide" is a term that gets flung around a lot, when the author usually means "killing."
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
I imagine I am one of those you suppose would be "baws deep into vengeance". You also bemoan the lack of nuance or doubt in the "revenge" strategy.
How precious.
I have no idea what I would do, like you, if we were in Israel's position. Intellectually, I have great sympathy for what they are doing. Is it as "surgical" as some people think is possible? Probably not. Are there civilian casualties? Absolutely and I regret that.
So it comes down to a matter of degree. I'm guessing you would like Israel to stop right this minute. And I guess if I had asked you yesterday you would have liked Israel to stop this minute. And so on, perhaps back to the afternoon of October 7th, who knows.
So what was Israel to do, given that I understand the reasons that they couldn't turn the other cheek.
I agree. It is proportionality. Israel has the right to defend itself and it under attack at the moment.
They are right to after Hamas. Hamas are not partners for peace, they are a threat to Israel's continued wellbeing. Targetting and killing the Hamas militia is totally legitimate, especially after the events of the 7th October.
However, by the same token, I feel they should seek a peaceful co-existence with the authority on the West Bank. Something rendered less likely by continued grabbing of land.
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
I imagine I am one of those you suppose would be "baws deep into vengeance". You also bemoan the lack of nuance or doubt in the "revenge" strategy.
How precious.
I have no idea what I would do, like you, if we were in Israel's position. Intellectually, I have great sympathy for what they are doing. Is it as "surgical" as some people think is possible? Probably not. Are there civilian casualties? Absolutely and I regret that.
So it comes down to a matter of degree. I'm guessing you would like Israel to stop right this minute. And I guess if I had asked you yesterday you would have liked Israel to stop this minute. And so on, perhaps back to the afternoon of October 7th, who knows.
So what was Israel to do, given that I understand the reasons that they couldn't turn the other cheek.
Not everything is about you chief. You disappearing up your own ass was in fact nowhere near my thoughts.
One thing I have noted (and I am not saying this is right) is that any political and emotional capital Israel did have now seems to have ebbed away. There is a clear shift from: "Israel is the victim of an horrendous attack and must be allowed to respond" to "There's a humanitarian crisis in the Holy Land and many innocents from both communities will die due to bilateral state violence."
I've read an awful lot on here, and elsewhere, about Mid-Bedfordshire, but hardly anything about Tamworth. Is that just because Tamworth is so dire that nobody goes there? I see that Labour are the bookies' clear favourites there, but I'm not sure why. Is that just because the LDs aren't in the game?
On the same note, I receive daily emails from Labour asking for help in Mid-Beds, but again, nothing on Tamworth. So, either Labour thinks it's in the bag, or they've given up. Does anybody know what's going on in Tamworth, and why there's such an apparent lack of interest?
Yes, I'm trying ascertain whether Tories are VALUE there, at a good notch over 3.
I think so. £40 on at 3.05 over at Smarkets for me. Same date as Mid Bedfordshire even though (to me at least) it feels like it 'ought to' come after. Con majority 4.5% higher than Labour there, it's also a fair bit more Brexity than Mid Beds. Against that lot, Labour won the most recent round of council elections although the prior distribution was more favourable to Labour locally compared to anything GE-wise.
Apparently Ukraine took out 9 Russian helicopters at their base last night with ATACMS.
Operation "DRAGONFLY" of the Special Operations Forces of Ukraine to strike enemy equipment in the airfields near temporarily occupied Luhansk and Berdiansk. According to the latest data, losses in Berdiansk and Luhansk are as follows:
▪️nine helicopters of various modifications; ▪️special equipment located at the airfields; ▪️air defense system launcher; ▪️an ammunition depot; ▪️airfield runways were damaged.
The ammunition depot in Berdiansk detonated until 4 am. Detonation in Luhansk lasted until 11 am.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
Apparently Ukraine took out 9 Russian helicopters at their base last night with ATACMS.
Operation "DRAGONFLY" of the Special Operations Forces of Ukraine to strike enemy equipment in the airfields near temporarily occupied Luhansk and Berdiansk. According to the latest data, losses in Berdiansk and Luhansk are as follows:
▪️nine helicopters of various modifications; ▪️special equipment located at the airfields; ▪️air defense system launcher; ▪️an ammunition depot; ▪️airfield runways were damaged.
The ammunition depot in Berdiansk detonated until 4 am. Detonation in Luhansk lasted until 11 am.
One thing that worries me a great deal is how much Hamas have been following the Ukraine war. If it's even half as much as we have, they'll know how a $10k NLAW is 100x more effective than a $10m tank, and that a $600 cardboard drone that flies undetectably under radar can destroy half your fighter jet squadron while they're still on the ground.
If Hamas are just a bunch of nutters with AK47s and 1980s-style rocket launchers, one imagines Israel's conventional army can flatten them. If, on the other hand, they've been watching the Ukraine theatre, and are being armed / trained by Iran....
@SamCoatesSky Tory officials claim their vote share in Thursday’s 2 by elections will approximately halve, leaked memo sent to Greg Hands - seen by Sky News - suggests
In Mid Beds and Tamworth, phone canvassing suggests Tory result will be ~30%
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
I imagine I am one of those you suppose would be "baws deep into vengeance". You also bemoan the lack of nuance or doubt in the "revenge" strategy.
How precious.
I have no idea what I would do, like you, if we were in Israel's position. Intellectually, I have great sympathy for what they are doing. Is it as "surgical" as some people think is possible? Probably not. Are there civilian casualties? Absolutely and I regret that.
So it comes down to a matter of degree. I'm guessing you would like Israel to stop right this minute. And I guess if I had asked you yesterday you would have liked Israel to stop this minute. And so on, perhaps back to the afternoon of October 7th, who knows.
So what was Israel to do, given that I understand the reasons that they couldn't turn the other cheek.
Not everything is about you chief. You disappearing up your own ass was in fact nowhere near my thoughts.
Distraught delighted to hear it.
But to your post. When the history books come to be written there will be a chapter I'm sure dedicated to the lack of nuance in current events.
Plus I'm right about you wanting Israel to stop this minute, and yesterday, and last Saturday, so what would you do/have done.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
148grss, go read my posts in recent days on PB. Ask yourself, is Bondegezou someone who rushes to defend Israeli action and ignores the Palestinians’ plight?
Apologies.
When these threads become conversations with multiple people, it is difficult to denote who says what. That question was, mainly, aimed at Sean F and others who had replied hand waving the atrocities of the state of Israel.
My position is still that it is clear that the Israeli plans of attack have genocidal intent.
You do realise that, to some, merely even criticising the actions of the Israeli government is anti-semitic.
Yes, I was involved in a long conversation yesterday about how I find that notion abhorrent and in and of itself part of the history of the anti-Semitic "dual loyalties" trope that always posits the Jewish people as foreigners in their own countries (in this case by claiming that all Jewish people are somehow automatically part of Israel, and therefore could have more loyalty to the Zionist cause than the country they live in and generations of their family may have lived in).
One thing I have noted (and I am not saying this is right) is that any political and emotional capital Israel did have now seems to have ebbed away. There is a clear shift from: "Israel is the victim of an horrendous attack and must be allowed to respond" to "There's a humanitarian crisis in the Holy Land and many innocents from both communities will die due to bilateral state violence."
Yep it comes back to @Stark_Dawning's estimation of Hamas having played a blinder. They have achieved this by their actions. Of course they might have blown up the baby while mining the bathwater and who in Hamas remains to gloat we really don't know right now, save for those in Qatar who I might advise to stay clear of the tennis courts for a while.
One thing I have noted (and I am not saying this is right) is that any political and emotional capital Israel did have now seems to have ebbed away. There is a clear shift from: "Israel is the victim of an horrendous attack and must be allowed to respond" to "There's a humanitarian crisis in the Holy Land and many innocents from both communities will die due to bilateral state violence."
The complicating factor for me is the settlements. The expansion of the settlements and the consequent effect it has on Palestinians is unsupportable.
Having said that, even that is no excuse for what we saw the other weekend.
@SamCoatesSky Tory officials claim their vote share in Thursday’s 2 by elections will approximately halve, leaked memo sent to Greg Hands - seen by Sky News - suggests
In Mid Beds and Tamworth, phone canvassing suggests Tory result will be ~30%
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
148grss, go read my posts in recent days on PB. Ask yourself, is Bondegezou someone who rushes to defend Israeli action and ignores the Palestinians’ plight?
Apologies.
When these threads become conversations with multiple people, it is difficult to denote who says what. That question was, mainly, aimed at Sean F and others who had replied hand waving the atrocities of the state of Israel.
My position is still that it is clear that the Israeli plans of attack have genocidal intent.
You do realise that, to some, merely even criticising the actions of the Israeli government is anti-semitic.
Yes, I was involved in a long conversation yesterday about how I find that notion abhorrent and in and of itself part of the history of the anti-Semitic "dual loyalties" trope that always posits the Jewish people as foreigners in their own countries (in this case by claiming that all Jewish people are somehow automatically part of Israel, and therefore could have more loyalty to the Zionist cause than the country they live in and generations of their family may have lived in).
If you mean on here (yes Divvie it's all about me) then that was with me and I said time and again that criticism of Israel per se is not anti-semitic. But that Israel was also a Jewish State and hence criticising Israel is criticising the Jews. I criticise Israel/the Jews for building settlements in the West Bank. They may think it is their historical right but an agreement has been made to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians. There, I just criticised Israel and the Jews and I don't believe the statement was anti-semitic.
Anti-semitism is a different category altogether and goes beyond criticism albeit people often try to slip in anti-semitism under cover of anti-Israel sentiment, as @Cyclefree noted also yesterday.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
Apparently Ukraine took out 9 Russian helicopters at their base last night with ATACMS.
Operation "DRAGONFLY" of the Special Operations Forces of Ukraine to strike enemy equipment in the airfields near temporarily occupied Luhansk and Berdiansk. According to the latest data, losses in Berdiansk and Luhansk are as follows:
▪️nine helicopters of various modifications; ▪️special equipment located at the airfields; ▪️air defense system launcher; ▪️an ammunition depot; ▪️airfield runways were damaged.
The ammunition depot in Berdiansk detonated until 4 am. Detonation in Luhansk lasted until 11 am.
It’s almost as if there’s a huge advantage to range in a land war.
This is why Ukraine has been begging for ATACMS for more than a year - every Russian airfield and ammo dump now needs to be inside what’s legally considered Russia, because anything in Ukraine is fair game for the defenders.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
148grss, go read my posts in recent days on PB. Ask yourself, is Bondegezou someone who rushes to defend Israeli action and ignores the Palestinians’ plight?
Apologies.
When these threads become conversations with multiple people, it is difficult to denote who says what. That question was, mainly, aimed at Sean F and others who had replied hand waving the atrocities of the state of Israel.
My position is still that it is clear that the Israeli plans of attack have genocidal intent.
You do realise that, to some, merely even criticising the actions of the Israeli government is anti-semitic.
Yes, I was involved in a long conversation yesterday about how I find that notion abhorrent and in and of itself part of the history of the anti-Semitic "dual loyalties" trope that always posits the Jewish people as foreigners in their own countries (in this case by claiming that all Jewish people are somehow automatically part of Israel, and therefore could have more loyalty to the Zionist cause than the country they live in and generations of their family may have lived in).
If you mean on here (yes Divvie it's all about me) then that was with me and I said time and again that criticism of Israel per se is not anti-semitic. But that Israel was also a Jewish State and hence criticising Israel is criticising the Jews. I criticise Israel/the Jews for building settlements in the West Bank. They may think it is their historical right but an agreement has been made to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians. There, I just criticised Israel and the Jews and I don't believe the statement was anti-semitic.
Anti-semitism is a different category altogether and goes beyond criticism albeit people often try to slip in anti-semitism under cover of anti-Israel sentiment, as @Cyclefree noted also yesterday.
I remember that was your position, but other posters and I also had a general wider discussion about if criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jewish people / anti-Semitism and why I still think your logic is faulty when you say "if Israel is definitionally a Jewish state, then to criticise Israel is to criticise Jews".
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
Thanks for the link. The first few lines are better than the subsequent 100. The reductio ad absurdam dilutes your point although I'm sure that many Speccie readers will try to fellate themselves, with a full complement of ribs, at some of his exploits.
Still glad I gave up the subscription.
My point? I didn’t write this libellous, histrionic drivel
In fact I find myself - uncharacteristically - outraged on behalf of Sir Keir Starmer. The insinuation that the onetime head of the Crown Prosecution Service would have major surgery so as to enable him to fellate himself is not only shocking, but seems completely groundless. Where is the evidence? There is none. Just sly innuendo
It also fails the historical test. How many Labour leaders of the past have had important bones removed so they can pleasure themselves by mouth? Zero. So it’s quite a departure if Starmer has done it
I agree. It is rather outrageous. This sort of thing, well it leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth really.
🔺NEW: Israel may not immediately send thousands of tanks and troops into Gaza after President Biden's visit tomorrow, as officials hint the effort to eradicate Hamas may be “something different” from a ground invasion.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
I remember that was your position, but other posters and I also had a general wider discussion about if criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jewish people / anti-Semitism and why I still think your logic is faulty when you say "if Israel is definitionally a Jewish state, then to criticise Israel is to criticise Jews".
'To criticise Israel is to criticise Jews and the 25% of the population who are not Jews' doesn't have quite the same comfortingly simplistic ring to it.
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
Yes there's some 'muscular' rhetoric of the sort I find a turn-off when it's about war - esp when people seem chilled about casualties or to assign a greater value to the life of non-combatants on one side over those on the other. I particularly dislike seeing spurious WW2 analogies rolled out to try and justify such sentiments.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
How do you "target Hamas, not Palestinians".
Ideally by not dropping 6,000 bombs in a densely packed urban area in the course of a week.
By not doing a knee jerk mass arming of any and every Israeli citizen who wants a gun and giving them carte blanche to shoot any Palestinian they want.
By killing the Hamas soldiers who were in Israel at the time (fighting went on in some parts for 3 days as far a I'm aware), securing the border and by going back to the intelligence agencies of Egypt and the US who warned you this was going to happen soon and you ignored and asking them for more precise information about where Hamas is.
If military operations must happen, they must happen in a way that aims to minimise civilian casualty - that is clearly not happening.
Comments
Inflation down towards 6% and two by election holds?? Maybe???
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-want-my-prime-minister-to-bore-me/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pmm1N3XXX97uQKusnBnrg0zptS9xJaa6/view?pli=1
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
I hope he had plush carpet, as that can seriously hurt. The remake of The Thomas Crown Affair has Pierce Brosnan making love to Rene Russo on a marble staircase, and all one could think of was "Lord that must be killing her back. At least get her a cushion."
Oh, here's a nonpaywall link: https://archive.ph/DmwNL
I did warn PBers that utter stupidity by Lib/Lab would let the Tories in.
A lesson in how NOT to play the FPP game.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
It’s quite a bombshell revelation
I have not had the time to follow the betting closely enough and haven’t bet anything myself. Had I, I’d be tempted to lay Con and bet LD at those odds, although I don’t think I’d dare to put big amounts down in either case. I’m sure some of you managed to lay the LDs when they were shorter and be green on them now. Congrats if so.
https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/1713984982702555335
https://x.com/warmonitors/status/1714238916096561209?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Meanwhile Israel is also hitting south Gaza, the place they so generously offered as a refuge for fleeing civilians. I guess most of the hundred dead must also be Hamas.
EadricPrince...@DPJHodges
·
2h
This is an example of how bonkers the Tory strategy is at the moment. You do not brief “we’re going to hold both seats”. You brief “we’ll keep fighting, but it’s tough”. It’s basic political expectation management.
I'm not sure the Wikipedia article is accurate, as it deals with slebs.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/14/gaza-civilians-afraid-to-leave-home-after-bombing-of-safe-routes
They backed up the rhetoric of "these are animals" by turning of the power, water and incoming food - and by keeping Palestinians in an open air cage for over a decade.
Israel's attacks have been so indiscriminate that you have journalists and UN staff being killed!
Is there anything Israel could do that you wouldn't defend or wave away?
Managed to have a nibble on them at 2/1 a week or so ago which I think I mentioned on here as value at the time (this was after viewing it as a no-bet for a while as it's such a weird by-election). Hopefully a few of us here will make a couple of quid out of it.
In passing, it will make a persuasive example for any sort of Lib-Lab electoral pact.
Ian Dunt
@IanDunt
Largely unfussed by this [Beds poll predictions]. There just aren't that many seats where Labour and the Lib Dems will get in each other's way. And a Tory win would sharpen minds about how they both approach the general election.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1714235639351136367
Still glad I gave up the subscription.
On the same note, I receive daily emails from Labour asking for help in Mid-Beds, but again, nothing on Tamworth. So, either Labour thinks it's in the bag, or they've given up. Does anybody know what's going on in Tamworth, and why there's such an apparent lack of interest?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
bondegezou has been one of those arguing exactly what we have been arguing as far as Israel overstepping the mark is concerned. I have seen nothing that could be considerd a defence of current or past Israeli attitudes or actions as far as Palestinian civilians are concerned.
*Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator
In fact I find myself - uncharacteristically - outraged on behalf of Sir Keir Starmer. The insinuation that the onetime head of the Crown Prosecution Service would have major surgery so as to enable him to fellate himself is not only shocking, but seems completely groundless. Where is the evidence? There is none. Just sly innuendo
It also fails the historical test. How many Labour leaders of the past have had important bones removed so they can pleasure themselves by mouth? Zero. So it’s quite a departure if Starmer has done it
My position is still that it is clear that the Israeli plans of attack have genocidal intent.
When these threads become conversations with multiple people, it is difficult to denote who says what. That question was, mainly, aimed at Sean F and others who had replied hand waving the atrocities of the state of Israel.
My position is still that it is clear that the Israeli plans of attack have genocidal intent.
The regime in Iran is not completely secure. They won't want to do anything to jeopardise their positions
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
How precious.
I have no idea what I would do, like you, if we were in Israel's position. Intellectually, I have great sympathy for what they are doing. Is it as "surgical" as some people think is possible? Probably not. Are there civilian casualties? Absolutely and I regret that.
So it comes down to a matter of degree. I'm guessing you would like Israel to stop right this minute. And I guess if I had asked you yesterday you would have liked Israel to stop this minute. And so on, perhaps back to the afternoon of October 7th, who knows.
So what was Israel to do, given that I understand the reasons that they couldn't turn the other cheek.
Bur regimes often see 'victory' in a war or conflict as a way to secure their positon.
"Genocide" is a term that gets flung around a lot, when the author usually means "killing."
I agree. It is proportionality. Israel has the right to defend itself and it under attack at the moment.
They are right to after Hamas. Hamas are not partners for peace, they are a threat to Israel's continued wellbeing. Targetting and killing the Hamas militia is totally legitimate, especially after the events of the 7th October.
However, by the same token, I feel they should seek a peaceful co-existence with the authority on the West Bank. Something rendered less likely by continued grabbing of land.
Against that lot, Labour won the most recent round of council elections although the prior distribution was more favourable to Labour locally compared to anything GE-wise.
Operation "DRAGONFLY" of the Special Operations Forces of Ukraine to strike enemy equipment in the airfields near temporarily occupied Luhansk and Berdiansk. According to the latest data, losses in Berdiansk and Luhansk are as follows:
▪️nine helicopters of various modifications;
▪️special equipment located at the airfields;
▪️air defense system launcher;
▪️an ammunition depot;
▪️airfield runways were damaged.
The ammunition depot in Berdiansk detonated until 4 am. Detonation in Luhansk lasted until 11 am.
Glory to Ukrainian Warriors!
📹: reportedly, Berdiansk.
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1714236208430059872?s=20
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
If Hamas are just a bunch of nutters with AK47s and 1980s-style rocket launchers, one imagines Israel's conventional army can flatten them. If, on the other hand, they've been watching the Ukraine theatre, and are being armed / trained by Iran....
Tory officials claim their vote share in Thursday’s 2 by elections will approximately halve, leaked memo sent to Greg Hands - seen by Sky News - suggests
In Mid Beds and Tamworth, phone canvassing suggests Tory result will be ~30%
https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-tory-memo-predicts-double-by-election-defeat-blaming-enormous-discontent-on-nadine-dorries-12986125
If true - and of course there is expectation management - that would mean defeat in Tamworth, tho not necessarily in Mid Beds
Nadine Dorries likely to be blamed for defeat, memo suggests
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
Distraughtdelighted to hear it.But to your post. When the history books come to be written there will be a chapter I'm sure dedicated to the lack of nuance in current events.
Plus I'm right about you wanting Israel to stop this minute, and yesterday, and last Saturday, so what would you do/have done.
Having said that, even that is no excuse for what we saw the other weekend.
superb article.
Why a Gaza Invasion and ‘Once and for All’ Thinking Are Wrong for Israel
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/opinion/israel-gaza-war.html
Anti-semitism is a different category altogether and goes beyond criticism albeit people often try to slip in anti-semitism under cover of anti-Israel sentiment, as @Cyclefree noted also yesterday.
“A senior Iranian military commander says that #Iran-backed militant groups will not stop targeting #Israel until the country ceases to exist.”
https://x.com/alarabiya_eng/status/1714252709132411193?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
They aren’t leaving Israel much room
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
This is why Ukraine has been begging for ATACMS for more than a year - every Russian airfield and ammo dump now needs to be inside what’s legally considered Russia, because anything in Ukraine is fair game for the defenders.
🔺NEW: Israel may not immediately send thousands of tanks and troops into Gaza after President Biden's visit tomorrow, as officials hint the effort to eradicate Hamas may be “something different” from a ground invasion.
Follow for the latest updates ⬇️
https://x.com/thetimes/status/1714255865547522317?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
What could it be, tho? Israel still has to extirpate Hamas. Somehow
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
By not doing a knee jerk mass arming of any and every Israeli citizen who wants a gun and giving them carte blanche to shoot any Palestinian they want.
By killing the Hamas soldiers who were in Israel at the time (fighting went on in some parts for 3 days as far a I'm aware), securing the border and by going back to the intelligence agencies of Egypt and the US who warned you this was going to happen soon and you ignored and asking them for more precise information about where Hamas is.
If military operations must happen, they must happen in a way that aims to minimise civilian casualty - that is clearly not happening.