Looks like we are back to Israel has the right to do that with Mr liar
Middle East Eye @MiddleEastEye · 2h "A senior adviser to Starmer was asked how many Gazans have to die before Labour will call for a ceasefire. The reply came: 'As many it takes…'
That's the sort of thing where I'd expect a fairly strong source for the claim.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Teslas have great wading depth as the battery and motors are very well sealed.
That probably completely trashed the interior though.
Driving an ICE car through deep water is most likely to immobilise it due to a stall from exhaust back pressure or killing a sensor like CPS or Lambda. It's almost impossible to get water into the engine via the intake as it's relatively high and the water has to get past the air filter, turbo and throttle body.
I've always been told (never been in the position...) is that, even if you keep them running in deep water, you will lose traction as the car will start floating. Hence why there are pictures of Land Rovers with snorkels where the passengers are on the bonnet to keep the wheels on the ground. Once you're floating, any current'll take you off the road.
It'd be interesting to know how well an EV car does work in water, from both floating and keeping-running POVs.
Especially for Leon, a couple of vikings from Copenhagen.
Denmark: clean, efficient, regularly noted as one of the happiest places in the world, and a tax-to- GDP ratio of 46.9%.
If you like Viking ships, Roskilde is great (harbourside museum for salvaged old ones from the sea bottom, and shipyard for new ones).
Yes, I wanted to go but was out-voted by Mrs P.
PS: one thing I regret missing is the working class club and museum. https://www.arbejdermuseet.dk/en/ - the restaurant sounded great (Danish food, not identikit international) at least at the time.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Yes, it did seem rather as if they’d driven it though a river, rather than simply in the rain. Difficult to know when you have only one side of the story.
As you say, no manufacturer will replace under warranty an engine with water in it either, but insurance would normally pay out in such circumstances.
If there’s actually a problem with heavy rain causing water ingestion to batteries, then there will quickly be insurance evaluations on the model. If it’s a one-off failure, then not so much.
Insurance will pay out for a borked battery as well.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Yes, it did seem rather as if they’d driven it though a river, rather than simply in the rain. Difficult to know when you have only one side of the story.
As you say, no manufacturer will replace under warranty an engine with water in it either, but insurance would normally pay out in such circumstances.
If there’s actually a problem with heavy rain causing water ingestion to batteries, then there will quickly be insurance evaluations on the model. If it’s a one-off failure, then not so much.
Insurance will pay out for a borked battery as well.
So long as the customer isn’t caught telling a massive lie on the claim form.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
Blimey, that really doesn't sell a Tesla for me. My previous Peugeot went through headlights like Bilio, once some water I think got on the wires and it was solved with a bit of crimping to get the connections tight - just a tenner a time from Halfords to sort them normally.
A world of difference between an old headlight where you change the bulb and LED units where you change out the entire thing. This isn't a Tesla issue - LED light units in modern cars cost a bomb.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Teslas have great wading depth as the battery and motors are very well sealed.
That probably completely trashed the interior though.
Driving an ICE car through deep water is most likely to immobilise it due to a stall from exhaust back pressure or killing a sensor like CPS or Lambda. It's almost impossible to get water into the engine via the intake as it's relatively high and the water has to get past the air filter, turbo and throttle body.
You should check out the Rufford Ford videos on YouTube. Hydrolocks galore.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Teslas have great wading depth as the battery and motors are very well sealed.
That probably completely trashed the interior though.
Driving an ICE car through deep water is most likely to immobilise it due to a stall from exhaust back pressure or killing a sensor like CPS or Lambda. It's almost impossible to get water into the engine via the intake as it's relatively high and the water has to get past the air filter, turbo and throttle body.
You sound disappointed. I take it when you tried to get water in the engine it failed?
When I was about 17 me and my mate took the air filter off his mum's Mk.1 1.3 Fiesta and fired a garden hose right into the airbox in a spirit of teenage scientific inquiry. Even that didn't stop it running but it produced an impressive amount of white vapour from the exhaust.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Teslas have great wading depth as the battery and motors are very well sealed.
That probably completely trashed the interior though.
Driving an ICE car through deep water is most likely to immobilise it due to a stall from exhaust back pressure or killing a sensor like CPS or Lambda. It's almost impossible to get water into the engine via the intake as it's relatively high and the water has to get past the air filter, turbo and throttle body.
I've always been told (never been in the position...) is that, even if you keep them running in deep water, you will lose traction as the car will start floating. Hence why there are pictures of Land Rovers with snorkels where the passengers are on the bonnet to keep the wheels on the ground. Once you're floating, any current'll take you off the road.
It'd be interesting to know how well an EV car does work in water, from both floating and keeping-running POVs.
There’s a lot of factors in that, from waterproofing of the battery, motor, and cabin openings, to the actual density of the vehicle full of air. EVs are generally heavier than cars with engines, but the C of G is lower. You can’t make a car airtight for the obvious reason, with the exception of some mad armoured VIP S-Class with an oxygen system.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Teslas have great wading depth as the battery and motors are very well sealed.
That probably completely trashed the interior though.
Driving an ICE car through deep water is most likely to immobilise it due to a stall from exhaust back pressure or killing a sensor like CPS or Lambda. It's almost impossible to get water into the engine via the intake as it's relatively high and the water has to get past the air filter, turbo and throttle body.
You sound disappointed. I take it when you tried to get water in the engine it failed?
When I was about 17 me and my mate took the air filter off his mum's Mk.1 1.3 Fiesta and fired a garden hose right into the airbox in a spirit of teenage scientific inquiry. Even that didn't stop it running but it produced an impressive amount of white vapour from the exhaust.
Mrs P once topped up my Audi 90 screen wash but used the engine oil cap by mistake*. That also produced power station volumes of steam once we finally got it started again.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Teslas have great wading depth as the battery and motors are very well sealed.
That probably completely trashed the interior though.
Driving an ICE car through deep water is most likely to immobilise it due to a stall from exhaust back pressure or killing a sensor like CPS or Lambda. It's almost impossible to get water into the engine via the intake as it's relatively high and the water has to get past the air filter, turbo and throttle body.
I've always been told (never been in the position...) is that, even if you keep them running in deep water, you will lose traction as the car will start floating. Hence why there are pictures of Land Rovers with snorkels where the passengers are on the bonnet to keep the wheels on the ground. Once you're floating, any current'll take you off the road.
It'd be interesting to know how well an EV car does work in water, from both floating and keeping-running POVs.
Deep water is also particularly good at killing diffs so if you've got to do it you're almost always better off doing it with the car stone cold as the seals/gaskets will be tighter.
Really, you're asking for trouble no matter what vehicle you're doing it in. And, in my long and chequered experience, when you ask for trouble with cars then you generally get it.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
And this is not the same as eradicating Gaza and all the Palestinians. What should Israel do? Hamas declared war, no question. They are going after Hamas. They advised people in Gaza to go south. Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians. This is very different to Hamas who decided to attack an Israeli version of Glastonbury.
What is the long term solution? It surely isn't anything like where we are now, but I find it intolerable that the victim here, Israel, is now being turned into the villain. I have huge sympathy for the Gazan people. They are like the ordinary decent Germans in 1945. But ultimately you cannot have a situation where the government on Gaza has the express policy of exterminating Israel and all Jewish people.
There are victims and villains on both sides. The political aims of Hamas are abhorrent; the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis over the past couple of decades has been appalling; the Hamas attacks on the 7th September were monstrous, and the current assault of Gaza is inhumane. Nobody should be making excuses for any of this.
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes encouragement of Terrorism, the Public Order Act 1986 includes incitement of hatred on the grounds of race or religion.
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret calling for Jihad at an anti Israel demo as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
See my first post [edited: 9am in] this thread, based on the Daily Telegraph report that the Jihad gap was identified to the Home Office in 2021 but nothing has been done by successive Home Secretaries. The author of that report has since become Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
And this is not the same as eradicating Gaza and all the Palestinians. What should Israel do? Hamas declared war, no question. They are going after Hamas. They advised people in Gaza to go south. Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians. This is very different to Hamas who decided to attack an Israeli version of Glastonbury.
What is the long term solution? It surely isn't anything like where we are now, but I find it intolerable that the victim here, Israel, is now being turned into the villain. I have huge sympathy for the Gazan people. They are like the ordinary decent Germans in 1945. But ultimately you cannot have a situation where the government on Gaza has the express policy of exterminating Israel and all Jewish people.
There are victims and villains on both sides. The political aims of Hamas are abhorrent; the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis over the past couple of decades has been appalling; the Hamas attacks on the 7th September were monstrous, and the current assault of Gaza is inhumane. Nobody should be making excuses for any of this.
Indeed. But I do not agree with your implied equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli government. As was mentioned earlier wrt Gaza in 2005 and the opening of the Port of Gaza, in this round, Israel has consistently responded to dealing with an organisation that wants the state of Israel eliminated.
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes encouragement of Terrorism, the Public Order Act 1986 includes incitement of hatred on the grounds of race or religion.
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret Jihad as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
Almost as if the mayor only cares about policing one half of the debate.
Khan is in a bind. He is in a close race with Hill and his core block vote is London's Muslim vote which is not going to take lightly to a crackdown on the protests. I've also mentioned before that, given it is FPTP, Luftur Rahman might be tempted to throw his hat in the ring (part because he may think has an outside chance of winning, part to stuff Labour) so Khan needs to be mindful of that.
The problem is, of course, is that his / the Met's actions are likely to turn the Jewish population out for Hill plus potentially risks annoying other minorities (Hindus / Black Christians) not to mention others.
Personally, I think he is stuffed in the election and I think it will be what happens in the Middle East, bizarrely, that will be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Long ago I owned a Cortina GT, and, sadly had a crash in it. Got it back, fixed, allegedly. However whenever it rained the car stopped and we couldn’t find the problem. Eventually it happened on a dark evening, we opened the bonnet and there, across the coil was a spark. Mystery solved.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
And this is not the same as eradicating Gaza and all the Palestinians. What should Israel do? Hamas declared war, no question. They are going after Hamas. They advised people in Gaza to go south. Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians. This is very different to Hamas who decided to attack an Israeli version of Glastonbury.
What is the long term solution? It surely isn't anything like where we are now, but I find it intolerable that the victim here, Israel, is now being turned into the villain. I have huge sympathy for the Gazan people. They are like the ordinary decent Germans in 1945. But ultimately you cannot have a situation where the government on Gaza has the express policy of exterminating Israel and all Jewish people.
There are victims and villains on both sides. The political aims of Hamas are abhorrent; the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis over the past couple of decades has been appalling; the Hamas attacks on the 7th September were monstrous, and the current assault of Gaza is inhumane. Nobody should be making excuses for any of this.
Nobody is making excuses
The need is solutions
Israel cannot exist next to a polity dedicated to its total racial eradication, a polity which is willing to shoot babies in cold blood to achieve that
Its not Israel alone that are blockading Gaza, and considering that the government of Gaza is explicitly at war with Israel, a blockade is a completely legal and legitimate response.
Just to be clear - you genuinely think that it's legitimate to prevent a civilian population having water and food if a plurality of them some years ago elected a government with whom Israel is at war? Nobody sensible is arguing that Hamas should be allowed by Israel to import weapons.
What do these famous rules of war say (held, no doubt, at the Bodleian and Library of Congress)? Such that they are worth the paper (microfiche?) they are printed on.
People are responding to this as though it is a terrorist act and hence any response should be in that light. AIUI Israel believes it is an act of war. I think that puts a different perspective on their response. Is it right? Was Iraq/Mosul/Falluja right? Easy to argue no. But that's war. Perhaps Israel feels it is more under threat and hence more legitimately fighting a war than we did in Iraq/Afghan.
What are your LFOI friends saying, Nick? I'm genuinely interested to know.
It’s worse than an act of war. It’s a pogrom, the initiation of an attempted genocide
Has this been posted here yet? Unherd's foreign correspondent at a press briefing, reporting on the footage they're being shown.
I have no love of death porn or gore videos, but somehow it's even more distressing to read the text of what's being shown, than watching the videos themselves (which I assume are equally horrific).
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes encouragement of Terrorism, the Public Order Act 1986 includes incitement of hatred on the grounds of race or religion.
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret Jihad as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
Almost as if the mayor only cares about policing one half of the debate.
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes encouragement of Terrorism, the Public Order Act 1986 includes incitement of hatred on the grounds of race or religion.
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret calling for Jihad at an anti Israel demo as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
See my first post [edited: 9am in] this thread, based on the Daily Telegraph report that the Jihad gap was identified to the Home Office in 2021 but nothing has been done by successive Home Secretaries. The author of that report has since become Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
And this is not the same as eradicating Gaza and all the Palestinians. What should Israel do? Hamas declared war, no question. They are going after Hamas. They advised people in Gaza to go south. Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians. This is very different to Hamas who decided to attack an Israeli version of Glastonbury.
What is the long term solution? It surely isn't anything like where we are now, but I find it intolerable that the victim here, Israel, is now being turned into the villain. I have huge sympathy for the Gazan people. They are like the ordinary decent Germans in 1945. But ultimately you cannot have a situation where the government on Gaza has the express policy of exterminating Israel and all Jewish people.
There are victims and villains on both sides. The political aims of Hamas are abhorrent; the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis over the past couple of decades has been appalling; the Hamas attacks on the 7th September were monstrous, and the current assault of Gaza is inhumane. Nobody should be making excuses for any of this.
Nobody is making excuses
The need is solutions
Israel cannot exist next to a polity dedicated to its total racial eradication, a polity which is willing to shoot babies in cold blood to achieve that
You and Mr FE are both right. There is, as we see it at the moment, no obvious answer. Or even the glimmer of a way forward.
A document presented by Israeli President Isaac Herzog as proof that Hamas intended to develop chemical weapons is actually an amateur biography of 9/11 attacker Ramzi Yousef and contains no instructions on how to develop chemical weapons
I saw Sly News reporting what Herzog said as if it was fact this morning.
Israel aren't very good at lying can't they take advice from Boris and/or SKS
Er, do you mean take advice from the same Boris you were willing to vote for?
Was never going to vote for either of the 2 Tory Parties. Levelling up locally has provided a lot of improvements.
I have found my new home the Green Party is great.
Its not Israel alone that are blockading Gaza, and considering that the government of Gaza is explicitly at war with Israel, a blockade is a completely legal and legitimate response.
Just to be clear - you genuinely think that it's legitimate to prevent a civilian population having water and food if a plurality of them some years ago elected a government with whom Israel is at war? Nobody sensible is arguing that Hamas should be allowed by Israel to import weapons.
What do these famous rules of war say (held, no doubt, at the Bodleian and Library of Congress)? Such that they are worth the paper (microfiche?) they are printed on.
People are responding to this as though it is a terrorist act and hence any response should be in that light. AIUI Israel believes it is an act of war. I think that puts a different perspective on their response. Is it right? Was Iraq/Mosul/Falluja right? Easy to argue no. But that's war. Perhaps Israel feels it is more under threat and hence more legitimately fighting a war than we did in Iraq/Afghan.
What are your LFOI friends saying, Nick? I'm genuinely interested to know.
It’s worse than an act of war. It’s a pogrom, the initiation of an attempted genocide
Has this been posted here yet? Unherd's foreign correspondent at a press briefing, reporting on the footage they're being shown.
I have no love of death porn or gore videos, but somehow it's even more distressing to read the text of what's being shown, than watching the videos themselves (which I assume are equally horrific).
“3: Hamas terrorists enter a house, where a small girl is seen hiding under the table. After some talking back and forth they shoot and kill her as she hides under the table. Hard to say how old she is but looks like 7-9 years old.”
That right there is pure Nazism. Israel cannot tolerate that
Its not Israel alone that are blockading Gaza, and considering that the government of Gaza is explicitly at war with Israel, a blockade is a completely legal and legitimate response.
Just to be clear - you genuinely think that it's legitimate to prevent a civilian population having water and food if a plurality of them some years ago elected a government with whom Israel is at war? Nobody sensible is arguing that Hamas should be allowed by Israel to import weapons.
What do these famous rules of war say (held, no doubt, at the Bodleian and Library of Congress)? Such that they are worth the paper (microfiche?) they are printed on.
People are responding to this as though it is a terrorist act and hence any response should be in that light. AIUI Israel believes it is an act of war. I think that puts a different perspective on their response. Is it right? Was Iraq/Mosul/Falluja right? Easy to argue no. But that's war. Perhaps Israel feels it is more under threat and hence more legitimately fighting a war than we did in Iraq/Afghan.
What are your LFOI friends saying, Nick? I'm genuinely interested to know.
It’s worse than an act of war. It’s a pogrom, the initiation of an attempted genocide
Has this been posted here yet? Unherd's foreign correspondent at a press briefing, reporting on the footage they're being shown.
I have no love of death porn or gore videos, but somehow it's even more distressing to read the text of what's being shown, than watching the videos themselves (which I assume are equally horrific).
It is interesting that the Israeli spox distinguishes Hamas from ordinary Palestinians, although Israel's military response does not, and also the identification that the massacres of babies, families and civilians, were ISIS (the name Daesh is used) tactics.
What bottomless level of depravity, inhumanity and hatred must you inhabit, to casually chat with a friend then shoot a 7 year old girl hiding under a table?
I’ve read about this stuff with the Nazis in the Holocaust. The absolute chilled-out relaxation with which they murdered children
This tells me that the constant indoctrination of gazan kids into jew-hatred has gone so far it cannot be redeemed
The only plausible outcome from this is an all out war between Israel and its enemies, and who knows how that ends up for the rest of us?
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
Blimey, that really doesn't sell a Tesla for me. My previous Peugeot went through headlights like Bilio, once some water I think got on the wires and it was solved with a bit of crimping to get the connections tight - just a tenner a time from Halfords to sort them normally.
A world of difference between an old headlight where you change the bulb and LED units where you change out the entire thing. This isn't a Tesla issue - LED light units in modern cars cost a bomb.
It's still remarkably expensive for a light housing and some LEDs, even fancy LEDs. I had to replace a full headlight unit (halogen bulb, but still in a fancy plastic moulding) on a Yaris, I think the part was about £60 at trade rate from a motor factors.
The thing which annoys me is that I'm paying for all this in increased insurance premiums, despite driving a proper car where all the bits are dirt cheap - so Rochdale running his company Tesla is actually imposing a cost so I can subsidise him.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
And this is not the same as eradicating Gaza and all the Palestinians. What should Israel do? Hamas declared war, no question. They are going after Hamas. They advised people in Gaza to go south. Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians. This is very different to Hamas who decided to attack an Israeli version of Glastonbury.
What is the long term solution? It surely isn't anything like where we are now, but I find it intolerable that the victim here, Israel, is now being turned into the villain. I have huge sympathy for the Gazan people. They are like the ordinary decent Germans in 1945. But ultimately you cannot have a situation where the government on Gaza has the express policy of exterminating Israel and all Jewish people.
There are victims and villains on both sides. The political aims of Hamas are abhorrent; the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis over the past couple of decades has been appalling; the Hamas attacks on the 7th September were monstrous, and the current assault of Gaza is inhumane. Nobody should be making excuses for any of this.
Nobody is making excuses
The need is solutions
Israel cannot exist next to a polity dedicated to its total racial eradication, a polity which is willing to shoot babies in cold blood to achieve that
That is true. Blowing up significantly more babies in response is not the answer either. It will only make Israel less safe and breed even more hatred from future generation.
There has to be a political settlement heads need to be knocked together and those who are unwilling to compromise on both sides need removing from power.
What bottomless level of depravity, inhumanity and hatred must you inhabit, to casually chat with a friend then shoot a 7 year old girl hiding under a table?
I’ve read about this stuff with the Nazis in the Holocaust. The absolute chilled-out relaxation with which they murdered children
This tells me that the constant indoctrination of gazan kids into jew-hatred has gone so far it cannot be redeemed
The only plausible outcome from this is an all out war between Israel and its enemies, and who knows how that ends up for the rest of us?
When this is a Hamas soldier killing a child it is a sign of specific and almost unique hatred; when IDF soldiers or Israeli missile strikes kill even more children it is just the casualties of war?
This is what boggles my mind - the clear prioritisation of one group of peoples' lives over another; both of whom are distant groups that, in the grand scheme of things, barely impact our lives.
If your concern is for dying children the only position you can take is one where Israel stops all bombardments of Gaza from the sky - which has resulted in the death of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of children.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
And this is not the same as eradicating Gaza and all the Palestinians. What should Israel do? Hamas declared war, no question. They are going after Hamas. They advised people in Gaza to go south. Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians. This is very different to Hamas who decided to attack an Israeli version of Glastonbury.
What is the long term solution? It surely isn't anything like where we are now, but I find it intolerable that the victim here, Israel, is now being turned into the villain. I have huge sympathy for the Gazan people. They are like the ordinary decent Germans in 1945. But ultimately you cannot have a situation where the government on Gaza has the express policy of exterminating Israel and all Jewish people.
There are victims and villains on both sides. The political aims of Hamas are abhorrent; the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis over the past couple of decades has been appalling; the Hamas attacks on the 7th September were monstrous, and the current assault of Gaza is inhumane. Nobody should be making excuses for any of this.
Nobody is making excuses
The need is solutions
Israel cannot exist next to a polity dedicated to its total racial eradication, a polity which is willing to shoot babies in cold blood to achieve that
That is true. Blowing up significantly more babies in response is not the answer either. It will only make Israel less safe and breed even more hatred from future generation.
There has to be a political settlement heads need to be knocked together and those who are unwilling to compromise on both sides need removing from power.
And how does one remove Hamas from power and a position where they can stage horrifying attacks, pray tell? They're genocidal fanatics armed to the teeth by Iran - whose stated aim is to wipe out Israel, and bloodily too. They're not just going to say "sorry about all that" lay down their arms and make way for some nice moderates.
What bottomless level of depravity, inhumanity and hatred must you inhabit, to casually chat with a friend then shoot a 7 year old girl hiding under a table?
I’ve read about this stuff with the Nazis in the Holocaust. The absolute chilled-out relaxation with which they murdered children
This tells me that the constant indoctrination of gazan kids into jew-hatred has gone so far it cannot be redeemed
The only plausible outcome from this is an all out war between Israel and its enemies, and who knows how that ends up for the rest of us?
When this is a Hamas soldier killing a child it is a sign of specific and almost unique hatred; when IDF soldiers or Israeli missile strikes kill even more children it is just the casualties of war?
This is what boggles my mind - the clear prioritisation of one group of peoples' lives over another; both of whom are distant groups that, in the grand scheme of things, barely impact our lives.
If your concern is for dying children the only position you can take is one where Israel stops all bombardments of Gaza from the sky - which has resulted in the death of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of children.
What boggles the mind here a bit is a failure to distinguish in intention. Hamas brutally murdered children in cold blood - in fact it's worse than that, they did so knowing that the inevitable outcome would be an Israeli military response that even at its most limited would bring misery on their own people. Hamas have admitted as much, with a representative saying that millions of deaths in Vietnam or Russia in WW2 were justified in the name of liberation. Now, there are entirely legitimate questions about the efficacy and proportionality of Israeli strikes and a possible ground invasion - some experts and world leaders have raised exactly these even while stating the principle of Israel's right to self-defence. And every death is a tragedy. But the principles of war have long held intention as vital. Civilian deaths are to be avoided if at all possible, sometimes sadly they won't be. But military action's justness and legality rests on intention and proportionality in that aim. Now there are legitimate questions over the latter, but no one could suggest Israel and Hamas's intentions are equivalent. One wants to remove a terror group that wants their destruction - with civilian deaths sadly impossible to avoid in pursuit of that goal. The other wanted to kill as many Jews as possible in the hope of sparking a regional conflict that could kill millions, including huge numbers of Palestinians. That is the difference. Not in the value of a life, but in aims and whether are tragic collateral victims - or the first intended ones in pursuit of a goal that will bring even more death and destruction down the line.
We should simply raise the regulatory temperature to undermine their business models. How about for a start that (just like banks) every account they have - they know who owns it. KYC for SM. When it suits their business model (AirBnB) they can do this and enforce it.
Comments
The Dom is quite something too, if it helps - cathedral. Lots of fossil-rich Oland marble used in the interior.
It'd be interesting to know how well an EV car does work in water, from both floating and keeping-running POVs.
(*She never admitted it though.)
Really, you're asking for trouble no matter what vehicle you're doing it in. And, in my long and chequered experience, when you ask for trouble with cars then you generally get it.
The problem is, of course, is that his / the Met's actions are likely to turn the Jewish population out for Hill plus potentially risks annoying other minorities (Hindus / Black Christians) not to mention others.
Personally, I think he is stuffed in the election and I think it will be what happens in the Middle East, bizarrely, that will be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Mystery solved.
The need is solutions
Israel cannot exist next to a polity dedicated to its total racial eradication, a polity which is willing to shoot babies in cold blood to achieve that
I have no love of death porn or gore videos, but somehow it's even more distressing to read the text of what's being shown, than watching the videos themselves (which I assume are equally horrific).
https://twitter.com/dpatrikarakos/status/1716419058604572865
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/22/gaps-in-uk-law-allowing-shouts-of-jihad-know-to-government
I have found my new home the Green Party is great.
“3: Hamas terrorists enter a house, where a small girl is seen hiding under the table. After some talking back and forth they shoot and kill her as she hides under the table. Hard to say how old she is but looks like 7-9 years old.”
That right there is pure Nazism. Israel cannot tolerate that
https://x.com/mrconfino/status/1716426892352356585?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Must win game on Thursday but even then its India after that.
Bleak stuff
NEW THREAD
I’ve read about this stuff with the Nazis in the Holocaust. The absolute chilled-out relaxation with which they murdered children
This tells me that the constant indoctrination of gazan kids into jew-hatred has gone so far it cannot be redeemed
The only plausible outcome from this is an all out war between Israel and its enemies, and who knows how that ends up for the rest of us?
The thing which annoys me is that I'm paying for all this in increased insurance premiums, despite driving a proper car where all the bits are dirt cheap - so Rochdale running his company Tesla is actually imposing a cost so I can subsidise him.
There has to be a political settlement heads need to be knocked together and those who are unwilling to compromise on both sides need removing from power.
This is what boggles my mind - the clear prioritisation of one group of peoples' lives over another; both of whom are distant groups that, in the grand scheme of things, barely impact our lives.
If your concern is for dying children the only position you can take is one where Israel stops all bombardments of Gaza from the sky - which has resulted in the death of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of children.
Winner/ loser/ voided?
Have to say I tried to place a bet only to find out. None of the sites I would bet with would not place a bet due to me being in Spain.
Anyone know how to place a wager in Spain? Fancy a cricket bet before my return on Thursday