FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
There is also the possibility of diplomatic pressure on Hamas via Qatar and Turkey, even if not Iran. You'd like to imagine the United States is already working on this.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
From time to time in Northern Ireland and Spain. Not all across the Western world though.
If you go to a Celtic football match, people will be waving banners that combine the Palestinian and Irish flags with the caption "Two People, One Struggle".
In this, like in so many things, most people take a side and then defend it uncritically.
What is odd is to pick a side in somebody else’s ethnic quarrel, and then become more royalist than the king.
Warsi sounds like she doesn't understand the difference between the private and public sector, based on that quote.
The taxpayer pays nurses. The private sector pays bankers. The more bankers earn, the more tax they pay. The more tax income provided, the more spending can happen.
Of course, the deficit could be reduced, but heaven forfend the political world consider the future beyond a single electoral cycle.
Yes, according to the Yougov analysis they sound very similar to those sticking with the Conservatives at the moment. Focusing on persuading them to vote, however unenthusiastically, is surely going to be the top Tory priority. Their age and demographics indicate that they are people more likely to vote than most so it is not impossible.
I think that this is a point that Mike has made a few times over recent months in the context of the Labour lead. It looks like he was spot on.
A fair proportion of those will be active abstentions. They won't be persuaded.
Whilst it is good to see actual figures, I do not think many observers of politics will be surprised that relatively well-off women (probably grandmothers), living the affluent blue wall have fallen out of love with a party that shows little empathy and humanity, has overseen a catastrophic decline in public services, and created a cost of living crisis that is disproportionately hurting their children.
Were I CCHQ, I wouldn't be holding my breath that these voters will be returning to the fold any time soon. On the other hand those 'warm and cuddly' LibDems might sense a big opportunity.
Do people view the Lib Dem’s as “warm and cuddly.”
Don't see why not.
People thought Boris was warm and cuddly for ages.
Twitter points out that the Rachel Reeves actually has its moments. Her description of the average male British economist:
It sounds like she’s describing an ex-boyfriend.
Someone sent to this to me a year or so ago and tried to claim it described me, but only some of the details are correct, like Cafe Oto and the LRB.
Lol.
It's very tempting to treat it as a kind of middle aged, middle class, middlebrow purity test.
(Are potted plants really an indicator?)
(I was a Chris Morris fan when he was doing weird stuff on the provincialest of BBC Local Radio.)
It’s a definite *type* - a middle-middle class and vaguely failed, ageing hipster. There’s a lot of them in Hackney but they tend *not* to be economists, more likely they work as brand planners in advertising agencies. The less successful ones have kind of hopeless non-jobs at the local council.
I’m not sure these guys - and they do exist, on the left - could afford Hackney anymore
Wathamstow or the nicer bits of Tottenham are more like it
It is extremely tedious to see the PB gammonati jump on the BBC/charities/venison eaters are anti semitic bus.
That a fact? Sorry to hear you're bored.
I think many people (perhaps not you) hugely underestimate the immense hurt, anxiety and fear felt by the Jewish community here in the UK and elsewhere.
Lord Wolfson, so far as I know,is not a member of the PB gammonati. But he's more worried about his daughter going into London wearing a Star of David necklace than he is about his son serving in the IDF. And he's not very impressed by the BBC.
I live on the UWS of Manhattan, which I think has the highest density of Jews in the world outside Tel Aviv.
I can only imagine the trauma of Jews as they are confronted once more with the exterminatory horror unleashed by Hamas. I have a lot of sympathy with Lord Wolfson’s fears but I think he is grossly overestimating the dangers of anti-semitism in London versus - you know - actual military service in a war zone. I can understand how he’s got there, but I think he’s wrong and I’d even argue he risks trivialising the real dangers.
I don’t know what the gammonati’s excuse is.
As someone who had did deal with actual anti-Semitic violence about 5 minutes ago, you are taking shit.
I broke the fuckers nose, thankfully.
You’re a complete idiot, with an anger management problem, by the sounds of it.
Someone was physically attacking a person for being Jewish - what should I have done, offered him and his friends tea?
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
"A species of animal or plant that is extinct no longer has any living members, either in the world or in a particular place.
It is 250 years since the wolf became extinct in Britain."
So you're quite happy that they"re focussed instead on restoring habitats and polluting them?
They have two foci: one is on restoring habits, one is on pollution. When we talk of a focus on pollution, we know from context that means on reducing pollution. What was written may be a bit clumsy, but the meaning was clear.
I posted the other day that one of the more significant aspects of the Israel vs multiple parties conflict to watch for in the coming days was the US setting down a marker to others to back off.
Im not sure the overnight strikes were a sufficient marker, its more likely to put the US on an escalation ladder due to the lack of deterrence value of that effort.
We will soon see.
Meanwhile a senior Hamas official has expressed disappointment at Hizbollahs efforts in opening a second front. Hizbollah has its own motivations and its own reasons not to have gone all in, either so far or indeed at all, not least the damage to itself that it will bring. Hamas is disposable to Iran, Hizbollah is not.
This is why I am not convinced by claims this was planned by Iran. Hezbollah has stayed out and Iran itself seemed slow to react after the 7th. It reminds me of the axis powers in ww2 when fascist Spain, largely created by Germany, stayed more-or-less neutral, and there was almost no coordination between Japan and Germany.
In what way was 'fascist Spain' largely created by Germany?
Picasso done a painting of it. The Nazis won the Spanish Civil War for Franco.
Oh dear God. Field sales agency finds a big customer in Northern Ireland. Lots of discussion about potential shipping routes (from France), where the product is going afterwards, what paperwork is needed both for standard export and Windsor Framework bullshit.
Chasing the agency for the company details so we can firm up the quote with an address. Agent says customer is agitated what is taking us so long. And this morning the agent confirms the address in Northern Ireland is DUBLIN.
Erm, thats not in Northern Ireland. So easy export. No paperwork. WTAF you stupid dumb bastard. Why have you wasted lots of people's time. "Well I did say it was in Ireland"
Yes, according to the Yougov analysis they sound very similar to those sticking with the Conservatives at the moment. Focusing on persuading them to vote, however unenthusiastically, is surely going to be the top Tory priority. Their age and demographics indicate that they are people more likely to vote than most so it is not impossible.
I think that this is a point that Mike has made a few times over recent months in the context of the Labour lead. It looks like he was spot on.
A fair proportion of those will be active abstentions. They won't be persuaded.
Whilst it is good to see actual figures, I do not think many observers of politics will be surprised that relatively well-off women (probably grandmothers), living the affluent blue wall have fallen out of love with a party that shows little empathy and humanity, has overseen a catastrophic decline in public services, and created a cost of living crisis that is disproportionately hurting their children.
Were I CCHQ, I wouldn't be holding my breath that these voters will be returning to the fold any time soon. On the other hand those 'warm and cuddly' LibDems might sense a big opportunity.
Do people view the Lib Dem’s as “warm and cuddly.”
Relatively speaking, yes. Compared to Tories who advocate “just stopping” the boats, for example.
And Good Morning everybody. Good to see Jack posting again, and I hope Big G is progressing well.
The correct way to consider the data in the lead isn't in absolute terms, but by comparing the switchers with the stayers. On that basis the things that stand out are that the switchers are more likely to be female and of working age. The other differences are marginal.
I'd have expected YouGov in its tweet to have understood that. The fact that the 'don't knows' tend to be older simply reflects the fact that former Tory voters in general are older, and is unremarkable. If anything the data suggests that the Tories are hanging on to older folks and losing everyone else - a trend for which there is a lot of anecdotal support.
YouGov are comparing the switchers to the stayers.
I posted the other day that one of the more significant aspects of the Israel vs multiple parties conflict to watch for in the coming days was the US setting down a marker to others to back off.
Im not sure the overnight strikes were a sufficient marker, its more likely to put the US on an escalation ladder due to the lack of deterrence value of that effort.
We will soon see.
Meanwhile a senior Hamas official has expressed disappointment at Hizbollahs efforts in opening a second front. Hizbollah has its own motivations and its own reasons not to have gone all in, either so far or indeed at all, not least the damage to itself that it will bring. Hamas is disposable to Iran, Hizbollah is not.
This is why I am not convinced by claims this was planned by Iran. Hezbollah has stayed out and Iran itself seemed slow to react after the 7th. It reminds me of the axis powers in ww2 when fascist Spain, largely created by Germany, stayed more-or-less neutral, and there was almost no coordination between Japan and Germany.
In what way was 'fascist Spain' largely created by Germany?
Picasso done a painting of it. The Nazis won the Spanish Civil War for Franco.
They helped. But, I think the Spanish Foreign Legion and Moroccan regulares were more significant.
@TSE my good Surrey friend is a neat example of the 2019 demographic. Homeowner, non-degree educated, female.
She has just now said she won't vote Conservative next time. But she would vote Boris.
They loved Boris. And Boris ain't on the ticket. They're lost to the tories: they aren't coming back.
I know a couple of people who would be the opposite of this. They detested Boris with a passion and broke the habit of a lifetime to vote Lib Dem in local elections, but (though I’ve not checked for sure) seem much more comfortable with Sunak’s for all his lack of charisma. I expect they’ll come home to Tory in the next election.
The difference is perhaps degree vs non degree educated. The latter saw through his schtick.
Posh people do such a good job of segregating themselves in this country that plenty of normal people never really encounter them, and so found Boris Johnson a kind of charming, hilarious, character. University is one of the few places where posh and normal people mix - although even then posh people carve out their own segregated spaces - and so university-educated normals have a kind of inoculation against people like Boris Johnson that lasts for a lifetime.
Live in Edinburgh for a few years and you can see them in the wild. New Town bars particularly good..
Working in a restaurant in St Andrews as a teenager was certainly instructive.
@TSE my good Surrey friend is a neat example of the 2019 demographic. Homeowner, non-degree educated, female.
She has just now said she won't vote Conservative next time. But she would vote Boris.
They loved Boris. And Boris ain't on the ticket. They're lost to the tories: they aren't coming back.
I know a couple of people who would be the opposite of this. They detested Boris with a passion and broke the habit of a lifetime to vote Lib Dem in local elections, but (though I’ve not checked for sure) seem much more comfortable with Sunak’s for all his lack of charisma. I expect they’ll come home to Tory in the next election.
The difference is perhaps degree vs non degree educated. The latter saw through his schtick.
Posh people do such a good job of segregating themselves in this country that plenty of normal people never really encounter them, and so found Boris Johnson a kind of charming, hilarious, character. University is one of the few places where posh and normal people mix - although even then posh people carve out their own segregated spaces - and so university-educated normals have a kind of inoculation against people like Boris Johnson that lasts for a lifetime.
I think it was in Tamworth, not Mid Beds, people in the street interviewed after the poll. After two or three said they switched, an elderly woman. "Um...rather disappointed the Conservatives didn't get in". I'd have said what about partygate, Pincher, Bone? Perhaps she'd never heard of them and wasn't bothered about the cost of living. Didn't sound particularly well off.
Warsi sounds like she doesn't understand the difference between the private and public sector, based on that quote.
The taxpayer pays nurses. The private sector pays bankers. The more bankers earn, the more tax they pay. The more tax income provided, the more spending can happen.
Of course, the deficit could be reduced, but heaven forfend the political world consider the future beyond a single electoral cycle.
Warsi’s quote indeed conflates public and private sector pay. However, we should also note that most of the deficit is a result of the Global Financial Crash, which was the result of bankers, not nurses. Encouraging risky behaviour by bankers has potential costs beyond a single electoral cycle.
Warsi sounds like she doesn't understand the difference between the private and public sector, based on that quote.
The taxpayer pays nurses. The private sector pays bankers. The more bankers earn, the more tax they pay. The more tax income provided, the more spending can happen.
Of course, the deficit could be reduced, but heaven forfend the political world consider the future beyond a single electoral cycle.
Sounds like you did not properly listen to the quote where she talks about the effects of pay increases on inflation. Public and private sectors don't come into it.
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
Warsi sounds like she doesn't understand the difference between the private and public sector, based on that quote.
The taxpayer pays nurses. The private sector pays bankers. The more bankers earn, the more tax they pay. The more tax income provided, the more spending can happen.
Of coruse, the deficit could be reduced, but heaven forfend the political world consider the future beyond a single electoral cycle.
Though other developed countries manage to fund themselves fine without such a big financial sector.
Besides- the private sector is just us, indirectly. We pay for bankers in the prices we pay for stuff and the slices skimmed off our savings. Unless financial activities are creating value (and my understanding is that quite a lot don't), the money would still be there and still be taxable, just in different hands.
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
Or perhaps after a suitable pause for thoughts and prayers, he's planning to legislate on reforming the human heart ?
Johnson has previously blamed mass shootings on the teaching of evolution.
As more than one comedian (Jimmy Carr?) has remarked, it is odd that school shooters don't head for the staff room and wipe out the teachers, including the teachers of evolution.
Warsi sounds like she doesn't understand the difference between the private and public sector, based on that quote.
The taxpayer pays nurses. The private sector pays bankers. The more bankers earn, the more tax they pay. The more tax income provided, the more spending can happen.
Of course, the deficit could be reduced, but heaven forfend the political world consider the future beyond a single electoral cycle.
That’s not how the typical politician sees it. They see our money as their money, and what we keep is a gift from them to us.
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
From time to time in Northern Ireland and Spain. Not all across the Western world though.
If you go to a Celtic football match, people will be waving banners that combine the Palestinian and Irish flags with the caption "Two People, One Struggle".
In this, like in so many things, most people take a side and then defend it uncritically.
Hard to imagine something like that happening on the other side. You'd never see someone on here with an avatar combining the English and Israeli flags, for instance. That would never happen.
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
Twitter points out that the Rachel Reeves actually has its moments. Her description of the average male British economist:
It sounds like she’s describing an ex-boyfriend.
Someone sent to this to me a year or so ago and tried to claim it described me, but only some of the details are correct, like Cafe Oto and the LRB.
Lol.
It's very tempting to treat it as a kind of middle aged, middle class, middlebrow purity test.
(Are potted plants really an indicator?)
(I was a Chris Morris fan when he was doing weird stuff on the provincialest of BBC Local Radio.)
It’s a definite *type* - a middle-middle class and vaguely failed, ageing hipster. There’s a lot of them in Hackney but they tend *not* to be economists, more likely they work as brand planners in advertising agencies. The less successful ones have kind of hopeless non-jobs at the local council.
I’m not sure these guys - and they do exist, on the left - could afford Hackney anymore
Wathamstow or the nicer bits of Tottenham are more like it
It is extremely tedious to see the PB gammonati jump on the BBC/charities/venison eaters are anti semitic bus.
That a fact? Sorry to hear you're bored.
I think many people (perhaps not you) hugely underestimate the immense hurt, anxiety and fear felt by the Jewish community here in the UK and elsewhere.
Lord Wolfson, so far as I know,is not a member of the PB gammonati. But he's more worried about his daughter going into London wearing a Star of David necklace than he is about his son serving in the IDF. And he's not very impressed by the BBC.
I live on the UWS of Manhattan, which I think has the highest density of Jews in the world outside Tel Aviv.
I can only imagine the trauma of Jews as they are confronted once more with the exterminatory horror unleashed by Hamas. I have a lot of sympathy with Lord Wolfson’s fears but I think he is grossly overestimating the dangers of anti-semitism in London versus - you know - actual military service in a war zone. I can understand how he’s got there, but I think he’s wrong and I’d even argue he risks trivialising the real dangers.
I don’t know what the gammonati’s excuse is.
As someone who had did deal with actual anti-Semitic violence about 5 minutes ago, you are taking shit.
I broke the fuckers nose, thankfully.
You’re a complete idiot, with an anger management problem, by the sounds of it.
Someone was physically attacking a person for being Jewish - what should I have done, offered him and his friends tea?
I’d like to think, in the same situation I’d do the same now. I have intervened in the past, once, fortunately it did not come to fisticuffs. Just a few swear words. Much to my relief.
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
Or perhaps after a suitable pause for thoughts and prayers, he's planning to legislate on reforming the human heart ?
Johnson has previously blamed mass shootings on the teaching of evolution.
On the basis that Christian fundamentalists are never violent, I suppose ?
The guy is a nut.
Yes, but is Speaker Johnson a Trump nut or was that just an alliance of convenience like it was for VP Pence and much of the American Evangelical right?
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
There are no easy or clean ways to fight terrorists who hide and are supported by a significant minority of their own community. We learnt that in Ireland, or perhaps didn't, as we had to go through the cycle several times over a period of over a century before learning anything at all.
What we did establish was that excessively violent responses such as the Bloody Sunday killings, or blunt responses such as internment without trial are the terrorists best recruiting seargents.
Ultimately peace and security arrive when political discussions allow grievances to be resolved, or at least frozen. The NI peace is certainly imperfect, and getting to where we are there meant accepting some injustices.
Peace is a process, and for a lasting peace that provides security to Israel there needs to be a resolution that provides security to the Palestinians too. The best way of pulling the support away from Hamas would be for Israel to permit a viable alternative Palestinian state to emerge on the West Bank. Instead its policy remains creeping annexation of the West Bank.
That's not an answer to my question. What would you have Israel do in response to Hamas's atrocity?
I'd also argue that the Northern Ireland issue is a lot less intractable than the Israel one.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The question should be -
“What can Israel do to hit Hamas, in a way that won’t simply cause casualties and be futile?”
I could see targeted attacks on leadership doing something, but trying to kill Hamas fighters is a fools errand - they are easy to recruit.
Otherwise you are getting into late stage Vietnam strategy - we can bomb, and it demonstrates our resolve to the Russians and it is doing *something*. But actually is doing less than nothing to win the war.
Twitter points out that the Rachel Reeves actually has its moments. Her description of the average male British economist:
It sounds like she’s describing an ex-boyfriend.
Someone sent to this to me a year or so ago and tried to claim it described me, but only some of the details are correct, like Cafe Oto and the LRB.
Lol.
It's very tempting to treat it as a kind of middle aged, middle class, middlebrow purity test.
(Are potted plants really an indicator?)
(I was a Chris Morris fan when he was doing weird stuff on the provincialest of BBC Local Radio.)
It’s a definite *type* - a middle-middle class and vaguely failed, ageing hipster. There’s a lot of them in Hackney but they tend *not* to be economists, more likely they work as brand planners in advertising agencies. The less successful ones have kind of hopeless non-jobs at the local council.
I’m not sure these guys - and they do exist, on the left - could afford Hackney anymore
Wathamstow or the nicer bits of Tottenham are more like it
It is extremely tedious to see the PB gammonati jump on the BBC/charities/venison eaters are anti semitic bus.
That a fact? Sorry to hear you're bored.
I think many people (perhaps not you) hugely underestimate the immense hurt, anxiety and fear felt by the Jewish community here in the UK and elsewhere.
Lord Wolfson, so far as I know,is not a member of the PB gammonati. But he's more worried about his daughter going into London wearing a Star of David necklace than he is about his son serving in the IDF. And he's not very impressed by the BBC.
I live on the UWS of Manhattan, which I think has the highest density of Jews in the world outside Tel Aviv.
I can only imagine the trauma of Jews as they are confronted once more with the exterminatory horror unleashed by Hamas. I have a lot of sympathy with Lord Wolfson’s fears but I think he is grossly overestimating the dangers of anti-semitism in London versus - you know - actual military service in a war zone. I can understand how he’s got there, but I think he’s wrong and I’d even argue he risks trivialising the real dangers.
I don’t know what the gammonati’s excuse is.
As someone who had did deal with actual anti-Semitic violence about 5 minutes ago, you are taking shit.
I broke the fuckers nose, thankfully.
You’re a complete idiot, with an anger management problem, by the sounds of it.
Someone was physically attacking a person for being Jewish - what should I have done, offered him and his friends tea?
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
From time to time in Northern Ireland and Spain. Not all across the Western world though.
If you go to a Celtic football match, people will be waving banners that combine the Palestinian and Irish flags with the caption "Two People, One Struggle".
In this, like in so many things, most people take a side and then defend it uncritically.
Hard to imagine something like that happening on the other side. You'd never see someone on here with an avatar combining the English and Israeli flags, for instance. That would never happen.
People like the National Front or whatever they’re called nowadays tend to use the English Cross of St George as well as Nazi symbols.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The search for a peaceful (or at least, more peaceful) solution might include the reestablishment of democracy in Gaza, and diplomatic pressure on Hamas via its backers, Qatar and Turkey, perhaps even Iran. (Note no mention of Israel.)
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
Canvassing last night an 83 year old summed up general response "I have voted Conservative all my life and my father did too, but not now - its like stopping supporting your football team." I think the Conservative brand is in real trouble.
I think it was in Tamworth, not Mid Beds, people in the street interviewed after the poll. After two or three said they switched, an elderly woman. "Um...rather disappointed the Conservatives didn't get in". I'd have said what about partygate, Pincher, Bone? Perhaps she'd never heard of them and wasn't bothered about the cost of living. Didn't sound particularly well off.
Most likely a losing Betfair punter.
Most people regard knowing the name of your MP as evidence of political anorakism.
They occasionally notice a particular policy or scandal - when it manages to cut through.
Boris Johnson got much of his lift from the fact that he could cut through and be *noticed* by everyday people.
This is why, I think, politics has become such a scramble of sound bites. Politicians desperate to get out of the “Politics” bin on the TV or in the papers - and escape to being talked about on Farcebook by “everyday people”…
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The question should be -
“What can Israel do to hit Hamas, in a way that won’t simply cause casualties and be futile?”
I could see targeted attacks on leadership doing something, but trying to kill Hamas fighters is a fools errand - they are easy to recruit.
Otherwise you are getting into late stage Vietnam strategy - we can bomb, and it demonstrates our resolve to the Russians and it is doing *something*. But actually is doing less than nothing to win the war.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The question should be -
“What can Israel do to hit Hamas, in a way that won’t simply cause casualties and be futile?”
I could see targeted attacks on leadership doing something, but trying to kill Hamas fighters is a fools errand - they are easy to recruit.
Otherwise you are getting into late stage Vietnam strategy - we can bomb, and it demonstrates our resolve to the Russians and it is doing *something*. But actually is doing less than nothing to win the war.
The next generation of Hamas fighters are cowering in the remaining Gaza schools and hearing their grandmothers cries. Bombing them won’t stop them, apart from wiping them out!
Chris Clarkson MP wants a judge-led inquiry into Angela Rayner saying Rishi Sunak flew home from the Conservative Party conference.
Honesty, integrity and truth matter in politics. That's why I have written to the Commissioner on Standards to ask him to look into recent comments made by Angela Rayner on LBC during her radio show.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
There are no easy or clean ways to fight terrorists who hide and are supported by a significant minority of their own community. We learnt that in Ireland, or perhaps didn't, as we had to go through the cycle several times over a period of over a century before learning anything at all.
What we did establish was that excessively violent responses such as the Bloody Sunday killings, or blunt responses such as internment without trial are the terrorists best recruiting seargents.
Ultimately peace and security arrive when political discussions allow grievances to be resolved, or at least frozen. The NI peace is certainly imperfect, and getting to where we are there meant accepting some injustices.
Peace is a process, and for a lasting peace that provides security to Israel there needs to be a resolution that provides security to the Palestinians too. The best way of pulling the support away from Hamas would be for Israel to permit a viable alternative Palestinian state to emerge on the West Bank. Instead its policy remains creeping annexation of the West Bank.
That's not an answer to my question. What would you have Israel do in response to Hamas's atrocity?
I'd also argue that the Northern Ireland issue is a lot less intractable than the Israel one.
PIRA’s war aims stopped short of genocide, unlike Hamas’. But, what brought them to negotiate was a grinding campaign of attrition.
Sending thousands of soldiers into Gaza, patiently arresting and trying members of Hamas, and spending billions on infrastructure and public sector employment, isn’t an option for Israel; particularly as, unlike Northern Ireland, there’s no big element of the population that supports them.
Oh dear God. Field sales agency finds a big customer in Northern Ireland. Lots of discussion about potential shipping routes (from France), where the product is going afterwards, what paperwork is needed both for standard export and Windsor Framework bullshit.
Chasing the agency for the company details so we can firm up the quote with an address. Agent says customer is agitated what is taking us so long. And this morning the agent confirms the address in Northern Ireland is DUBLIN.
Erm, thats not in Northern Ireland. So easy export. No paperwork. WTAF you stupid dumb bastard. Why have you wasted lots of people's time. "Well I did say it was in Ireland"
Happy Friday!
In theory it should be better to trade via NI as it's "sort of" in both GB and EU, but the practicalities look like a real rat's nest of rules:
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
There are no easy or clean ways to fight terrorists who hide and are supported by a significant minority of their own community. We learnt that in Ireland, or perhaps didn't, as we had to go through the cycle several times over a period of over a century before learning anything at all.
What we did establish was that excessively violent responses such as the Bloody Sunday killings, or blunt responses such as internment without trial are the terrorists best recruiting seargents.
Ultimately peace and security arrive when political discussions allow grievances to be resolved, or at least frozen. The NI peace is certainly imperfect, and getting to where we are there meant accepting some injustices.
Peace is a process, and for a lasting peace that provides security to Israel there needs to be a resolution that provides security to the Palestinians too. The best way of pulling the support away from Hamas would be for Israel to permit a viable alternative Palestinian state to emerge on the West Bank. Instead its policy remains creeping annexation of the West Bank.
That's not an answer to my question. What would you have Israel do in response to Hamas's atrocity?
I'd also argue that the Northern Ireland issue is a lot less intractable than the Israel one.
It certainly looks that way now but go back a few years and in Northern Ireland we had a strip of land whose ownership was contested by two powers, two opposed groups identified by their religion, and active terrorists funded from abroad. One crucial part was persuading each side not to allow itself to be provoked by extremists on the other side, and we are a long way from that in the Middle East with its weary cycle of tit for tat killings.
4) The BBC have given up reporting facts and are trying to make the government look stupid, or at least, even more stupid.
Disturbingly, I honestly don’t know which one it is.
There is another alternative: they're doing this Jurassic Park style.
Extinct is not always used as per the Dodo in recording circles. It just means the species doesn't exist in a particular location.
Today I am going out looking for a species which is marked as extinct on the maps but all that means is that it hasn't been seen locally for about 50 years. Unfortunately the last recorder did not provide a grid reference and the site covers many square miles, most of which is very difficult of access.
There are two known extant sites for our target species in the UK and we are actually considering reintroduction from a 50 year old specimen in the museum...
"It's not the time" is the most craven deflection. If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
Or perhaps after a suitable pause for thoughts and prayers, he's planning to legislate on reforming the human heart ?
Johnson has previously blamed mass shootings on the teaching of evolution.
On the basis that Christian fundamentalists are never violent, I suppose ?
The guy is a nut.
Yes, but is Speaker Johnson a Trump nut or was that just an alliance of convenience like it was for VP Pence and much of the American Evangelical right?
Convenience or not really doesn't mean much; actions mean more.
He had a leading role in the Congressional effort to give the last election to Trump, so it's a closer relationship than that of Pence.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The search for a peaceful (or at least, more peaceful) solution might include the reestablishment of democracy in Gaza, and diplomatic pressure on Hamas via its backers, Qatar and Turkey, perhaps even Iran. (Note no mention of Israel.)
Yes, but that's a medium- or long-term thing. The question is what can happen *now*?
This has been a victory for Hamas, and a victory that will embolden them, Hizbollah and others to do similar spectaculars again in a year or three. They need to be dissuaded from that: and the best way is for them not to see it as a 'victory'. Israel seem to think they can only do that through trying to kill as many Hamas people as possible; I think that's correct in the short-term, and madness in the long-term. But Israel doing nothing is madness in the short, medium and long term.
It's sad that so many people (rightly) calling for Palestinian civilians to be protected put all the onus on Israel. I haven't seen many of them on here calling for Hamas to immediately release all prisoners to Israel without strings, and to stop the ongoing rocket attacks. Why are Palestinian civilians the only civilians that matter?
If we want peace, then Hamas must not do anything like this again. Otherwise you're calling for a very odd, one-sided form of 'peace'.
Twitter points out that the Rachel Reeves actually has its moments. Her description of the average male British economist:
It sounds like she’s describing an ex-boyfriend.
Someone sent to this to me a year or so ago and tried to claim it described me, but only some of the details are correct, like Cafe Oto and the LRB.
Lol.
It's very tempting to treat it as a kind of middle aged, middle class, middlebrow purity test.
(Are potted plants really an indicator?)
(I was a Chris Morris fan when he was doing weird stuff on the provincialest of BBC Local Radio.)
It’s a definite *type* - a middle-middle class and vaguely failed, ageing hipster. There’s a lot of them in Hackney but they tend *not* to be economists, more likely they work as brand planners in advertising agencies. The less successful ones have kind of hopeless non-jobs at the local council.
I’m not sure these guys - and they do exist, on the left - could afford Hackney anymore
Wathamstow or the nicer bits of Tottenham are more like it
It is extremely tedious to see the PB gammonati jump on the BBC/charities/venison eaters are anti semitic bus.
That a fact? Sorry to hear you're bored.
I think many people (perhaps not you) hugely underestimate the immense hurt, anxiety and fear felt by the Jewish community here in the UK and elsewhere.
Lord Wolfson, so far as I know,is not a member of the PB gammonati. But he's more worried about his daughter going into London wearing a Star of David necklace than he is about his son serving in the IDF. And he's not very impressed by the BBC.
I live on the UWS of Manhattan, which I think has the highest density of Jews in the world outside Tel Aviv.
I can only imagine the trauma of Jews as they are confronted once more with the exterminatory horror unleashed by Hamas. I have a lot of sympathy with Lord Wolfson’s fears but I think he is grossly overestimating the dangers of anti-semitism in London versus - you know - actual military service in a war zone. I can understand how he’s got there, but I think he’s wrong and I’d even argue he risks trivialising the real dangers.
I don’t know what the gammonati’s excuse is.
As someone who had did deal with actual anti-Semitic violence about 5 minutes ago, you are taking shit.
I broke the fuckers nose, thankfully.
You’re a complete idiot, with an anger management problem, by the sounds of it.
Someone was physically attacking a person for being Jewish - what should I have done, offered him and his friends tea?
Did everyone on the bus applaud?
No - it was several people intervening, fortunately. Your classic racist attack by a few thugs against one individual.
Canvassing last night an 83 year old summed up general response "I have voted Conservative all my life and my father did too, but not now - its like stopping supporting your football team." I think the Conservative brand is in real trouble.
That wouldn't be too bad, fans who stop supporting a team regularly return once the team signs some better players. The underlying issue is why would the better players want to come to a dysfunctional, divided and out of control club?
Oh dear God. Field sales agency finds a big customer in Northern Ireland. Lots of discussion about potential shipping routes (from France), where the product is going afterwards, what paperwork is needed both for standard export and Windsor Framework bullshit.
Chasing the agency for the company details so we can firm up the quote with an address. Agent says customer is agitated what is taking us so long. And this morning the agent confirms the address in Northern Ireland is DUBLIN.
Erm, thats not in Northern Ireland. So easy export. No paperwork. WTAF you stupid dumb bastard. Why have you wasted lots of people's time. "Well I did say it was in Ireland"
Happy Friday!
In theory it should be better to trade via NI as it's "sort of" in both GB and EU, but the practicalities look like a real rat's nest of rules:
Exactly. The government tout the theory. Isn't Rishi's Windsor Framework marvellous.
In reality you're not just doing customs paperwork to send Birmingham to Belfast. You then need to ask what the customer is going to do with the product and change the labelling accordingly.
Whereas if you go in from the south directly within the EU there is no paperwork. Especially as it turns out the customer is in the sodding Republic and not in NI as the idiot had claimed.
Twitter points out that the Rachel Reeves actually has its moments. Her description of the average male British economist:
It sounds like she’s describing an ex-boyfriend.
Someone sent to this to me a year or so ago and tried to claim it described me, but only some of the details are correct, like Cafe Oto and the LRB.
Lol.
It's very tempting to treat it as a kind of middle aged, middle class, middlebrow purity test.
(Are potted plants really an indicator?)
(I was a Chris Morris fan when he was doing weird stuff on the provincialest of BBC Local Radio.)
It’s a definite *type* - a middle-middle class and vaguely failed, ageing hipster. There’s a lot of them in Hackney but they tend *not* to be economists, more likely they work as brand planners in advertising agencies. The less successful ones have kind of hopeless non-jobs at the local council.
I’m not sure these guys - and they do exist, on the left - could afford Hackney anymore
Wathamstow or the nicer bits of Tottenham are more like it
It is extremely tedious to see the PB gammonati jump on the BBC/charities/venison eaters are anti semitic bus.
That a fact? Sorry to hear you're bored.
I think many people (perhaps not you) hugely underestimate the immense hurt, anxiety and fear felt by the Jewish community here in the UK and elsewhere.
Lord Wolfson, so far as I know,is not a member of the PB gammonati. But he's more worried about his daughter going into London wearing a Star of David necklace than he is about his son serving in the IDF. And he's not very impressed by the BBC.
I live on the UWS of Manhattan, which I think has the highest density of Jews in the world outside Tel Aviv.
I can only imagine the trauma of Jews as they are confronted once more with the exterminatory horror unleashed by Hamas. I have a lot of sympathy with Lord Wolfson’s fears but I think he is grossly overestimating the dangers of anti-semitism in London versus - you know - actual military service in a war zone. I can understand how he’s got there, but I think he’s wrong and I’d even argue he risks trivialising the real dangers.
I don’t know what the gammonati’s excuse is.
As someone who had did deal with actual anti-Semitic violence about 5 minutes ago, you are taking shit.
I broke the fuckers nose, thankfully.
You’re a complete idiot, with an anger management problem, by the sounds of it.
Someone was physically attacking a person for being Jewish - what should I have done, offered him and his friends tea?
Did everyone on the bus applaud?
No - it was several people intervening, fortunately. Your classic racist attack by a few thugs against one individual.
Thank you.
I saw a young Muslim woman in an abaya help walk an elderly Jewish chap in kippah over the road the other day, and it gave me so much hope. It's easy to pick sides in this, and forget that most people are probably just decent human beings.
I think it was in Tamworth, not Mid Beds, people in the street interviewed after the poll. After two or three said they switched, an elderly woman. "Um...rather disappointed the Conservatives didn't get in". I'd have said what about partygate, Pincher, Bone? Perhaps she'd never heard of them and wasn't bothered about the cost of living. Didn't sound particularly well off.
Most likely a losing Betfair punter.
Most people regard knowing the name of your MP as evidence of political anorakism.
They occasionally notice a particular policy or scandal - when it manages to cut through.
Boris Johnson got much of his lift from the fact that he could cut through and be *noticed* by everyday people.
This is why, I think, politics has become such a scramble of sound bites. Politicians desperate to get out of the “Politics” bin on the TV or in the papers - and escape to being talked about on Farcebook by “everyday people”…
The person mentioned in the original story from sbjme19 didn't actually say she didn't know who her MP (Pincher) was. She just said she was disappointed the Tories didn't win the by-election.
She might very well have known who Pincher was. Whether or not he was well known as a constituency MP before, his downfall (and its connection with the downfall of Johnson) was a pretty high-profile story, and it no doubt featured heavily in the Labour campaign.
But the lady's disappointment about the result might simply have had nothing to do with that. She might just be quite right wing, she might like Sunak, and think he's the best person to be PM. I'd disagree with her, and it certainly isn't a majority view... but it's not a wildly uncommon view.
Sbjme19 also mentioned she the "elderly woman... wasn't bothered about the cost of living". That's the Triple Lock for you!
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
I have nowhere claimed that Israel can strike without imperilling Palestinian civilians. I have repeatedly said that Israel should strike Hamas, and doing so will inevitably involve civilian casualties.
You lay out above two scenarios: one where Israel responds “harshly” and one where Israel does not respond. Fortunately there is an obvious third way between those.
Hamas releasing all the hostages, and Hamas and Hezbollah stopping attacks would be great steps towards peace. (Like you, I have little faith Hamas will do that in the short term.) My reply focused on Israeli actions because you asked “what would you have Israel do?” I’m not certain why you are criticising me for answering your question.
Twitter points out that the Rachel Reeves actually has its moments. Her description of the average male British economist:
It sounds like she’s describing an ex-boyfriend.
Someone sent to this to me a year or so ago and tried to claim it described me, but only some of the details are correct, like Cafe Oto and the LRB.
Lol.
It's very tempting to treat it as a kind of middle aged, middle class, middlebrow purity test.
(Are potted plants really an indicator?)
(I was a Chris Morris fan when he was doing weird stuff on the provincialest of BBC Local Radio.)
It’s a definite *type* - a middle-middle class and vaguely failed, ageing hipster. There’s a lot of them in Hackney but they tend *not* to be economists, more likely they work as brand planners in advertising agencies. The less successful ones have kind of hopeless non-jobs at the local council.
I’m not sure these guys - and they do exist, on the left - could afford Hackney anymore
Wathamstow or the nicer bits of Tottenham are more like it
It is extremely tedious to see the PB gammonati jump on the BBC/charities/venison eaters are anti semitic bus.
That a fact? Sorry to hear you're bored.
I think many people (perhaps not you) hugely underestimate the immense hurt, anxiety and fear felt by the Jewish community here in the UK and elsewhere.
Lord Wolfson, so far as I know,is not a member of the PB gammonati. But he's more worried about his daughter going into London wearing a Star of David necklace than he is about his son serving in the IDF. And he's not very impressed by the BBC.
I live on the UWS of Manhattan, which I think has the highest density of Jews in the world outside Tel Aviv.
I can only imagine the trauma of Jews as they are confronted once more with the exterminatory horror unleashed by Hamas. I have a lot of sympathy with Lord Wolfson’s fears but I think he is grossly overestimating the dangers of anti-semitism in London versus - you know - actual military service in a war zone. I can understand how he’s got there, but I think he’s wrong and I’d even argue he risks trivialising the real dangers.
I don’t know what the gammonati’s excuse is.
As someone who had did deal with actual anti-Semitic violence about 5 minutes ago, you are taking shit.
I broke the fuckers nose, thankfully.
You’re a complete idiot, with an anger management problem, by the sounds of it.
Someone was physically attacking a person for being Jewish - what should I have done, offered him and his friends tea?
Did everyone on the bus applaud?
No - it was several people intervening, fortunately. Your classic racist attack by a few thugs against one individual.
Thank you.
I saw a young Muslim woman in an abaya help walk an elderly Jewish chap in kippah over the road the other day, and it gave me so much hope. It's easy to pick sides in this, and forget that most people are probably just decent human beings.
Absolutely - on a similar vein, the local Imam and Rabbi where I am are friends, and jointly condemn attacks on both communities. No whatsboutery there.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The search for a peaceful (or at least, more peaceful) solution might include the reestablishment of democracy in Gaza, and diplomatic pressure on Hamas via its backers, Qatar and Turkey, perhaps even Iran. (Note no mention of Israel.)
Yes, but that's a medium- or long-term thing. The question is what can happen *now*?
This has been a victory for Hamas, and a victory that will embolden them, Hizbollah and others to do similar spectaculars again in a year or three. They need to be dissuaded from that: and the best way is for them not to see it as a 'victory'. Israel seem to think they can only do that through trying to kill as many Hamas people as possible; I think that's correct in the short-term, and madness in the long-term. But Israel doing nothing is madness in the short, medium and long term.
It's sad that so many people (rightly) calling for Palestinian civilians to be protected put all the onus on Israel. I haven't seen many of them on here calling for Hamas to immediately release all prisoners to Israel without strings, and to stop the ongoing rocket attacks. Why are Palestinian civilians the only civilians that matter?
If we want peace, then Hamas must not do anything like this again. Otherwise you're calling for a very odd, one-sided form of 'peace'.
Israel has already killed more civilians in Gaza since 7th October than Hamas did on that date. It has not done nothing. What Wellington called the butcher's bill is already high enough, and rising.
As for the hostages, there are already negotiations for their release (and some have been released). It is possible others have already been killed either by Hamas or by Israel bombing and shelling Hamas facilities.
As statistically more likely to be home owning pensioners and therefore Brexiteers you would expect more of the 2019 Conservative voters who are now DK to return to the party than those who have defected to other parties
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The search for a peaceful (or at least, more peaceful) solution might include the reestablishment of democracy in Gaza, and diplomatic pressure on Hamas via its backers, Qatar and Turkey, perhaps even Iran. (Note no mention of Israel.)
Yes, but that's a medium- or long-term thing. The question is what can happen *now*?
This has been a victory for Hamas, and a victory that will embolden them, Hizbollah and others to do similar spectaculars again in a year or three. They need to be dissuaded from that: and the best way is for them not to see it as a 'victory'. Israel seem to think they can only do that through trying to kill as many Hamas people as possible; I think that's correct in the short-term, and madness in the long-term. But Israel doing nothing is madness in the short, medium and long term.
It's sad that so many people (rightly) calling for Palestinian civilians to be protected put all the onus on Israel. I haven't seen many of them on here calling for Hamas to immediately release all prisoners to Israel without strings, and to stop the ongoing rocket attacks. Why are Palestinian civilians the only civilians that matter?
If we want peace, then Hamas must not do anything like this again. Otherwise you're calling for a very odd, one-sided form of 'peace'.
Literally no-one on here has said Hamas should keep the hostages because it goes without saying that of course they should release the hostages. Until that sentence I hadn't said it, simply because it is bleeding obvious.
Israels response is commented on more because they have a wider range of plausible options (none of which are good) not because people don't care about Israelis.
On the topic of mystery voters, the gap between pollsters on the minor parties remains extreme.
To take the last 3 as an example:
YouGov has Refuk on 9% (yeah right) and Green on 5%
Ipsos has Greens on 9% (hmm…). Annoyingly their headline doesn’t quote Ref who are within other 11% implying a medium to lowish score after deducting presumably at least 4% for SNP + PC and 1% for UKIP / random others.
And Savanta gives Ref and Green a measly 5% and 3% respectively.
It can depend on whether you name the choice of parties to vote for or whether it’s a simple ask with no choice . You always tend to find smaller parties with higher vote shares when you get the choice .
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The search for a peaceful (or at least, more peaceful) solution might include the reestablishment of democracy in Gaza, and diplomatic pressure on Hamas via its backers, Qatar and Turkey, perhaps even Iran. (Note no mention of Israel.)
Yes, but that's a medium- or long-term thing. The question is what can happen *now*?
This has been a victory for Hamas, and a victory that will embolden them, Hizbollah and others to do similar spectaculars again in a year or three. They need to be dissuaded from that: and the best way is for them not to see it as a 'victory'. Israel seem to think they can only do that through trying to kill as many Hamas people as possible; I think that's correct in the short-term, and madness in the long-term. But Israel doing nothing is madness in the short, medium and long term.
It's sad that so many people (rightly) calling for Palestinian civilians to be protected put all the onus on Israel. I haven't seen many of them on here calling for Hamas to immediately release all prisoners to Israel without strings, and to stop the ongoing rocket attacks. Why are Palestinian civilians the only civilians that matter?
If we want peace, then Hamas must not do anything like this again. Otherwise you're calling for a very odd, one-sided form of 'peace'.
There are some terrible realities at play. Israel won't stop until the hostages are freed / their bodies recovered. Hamas will not hand over the hostages. Israel doesn't want to kill civilians so Hamas embeds itself with civilians.
For all that everyone seems to be putting all the emphasis on what Israel does, very little is aimed at what Hamas does. Either Israel goes after Hamas - internationally decried as a terrorist group - or it does not.
We all want peace for both sides. But a dictated peace now imposed by crushing international opinion would be a huge victory for Hamas and immediately lead to a rapid dismantling of "peace" and waves of attacks. Hamas would look to violently slaughter as many as possible and commit as many acts of barbarity as possible, knowing that Israel would then be dissuaded from retaliation by the hand-wringing west.
At its worst the IRA was pledged to getting the Brits off Ireland. Hamas is pledged to the extermination of Israel. Encouraging a pogrom against global Jewry. The two are not remotely equivalent.
I think it was in Tamworth, not Mid Beds, people in the street interviewed after the poll. After two or three said they switched, an elderly woman. "Um...rather disappointed the Conservatives didn't get in". I'd have said what about partygate, Pincher, Bone? Perhaps she'd never heard of them and wasn't bothered about the cost of living. Didn't sound particularly well off.
Most likely a losing Betfair punter.
Most people regard knowing the name of your MP as evidence of political anorakism.
They occasionally notice a particular policy or scandal - when it manages to cut through.
Boris Johnson got much of his lift from the fact that he could cut through and be *noticed* by everyday people.
This is why, I think, politics has become such a scramble of sound bites. Politicians desperate to get out of the “Politics” bin on the TV or in the papers - and escape to being talked about on Farcebook by “everyday people”…
The person mentioned in the original story from sbjme19 didn't actually say she didn't know who her MP (Pincher) was. She just said she was disappointed the Tories didn't win the by-election.
She might very well have known who Pincher was. Whether or not he was well known as a constituency MP before, his downfall (and its connection with the downfall of Johnson) was a pretty high-profile story, and it no doubt featured heavily in the Labour campaign.
But the lady's disappointment about the result might simply have had nothing to do with that. She might just be quite right wing, she might like Sunak, and think he's the best person to be PM. I'd disagree with her, and it certainly isn't a majority view... but it's not a wildly uncommon view.
Sbjme19 also mentioned she the "elderly woman... wasn't bothered about the cost of living". That's the Triple Lock for you!
I’m reminded of the quote - “We don’t do politics round here, we vote Labour”. It was in one of those constituencies where they were said to weigh the Labour vote, rather than count it.
For many (most?) people the way they vote is vague tribalism, with occasional scandals or policies intruding. The Conservative Party is down to the hard core of “we always vote Conservative”.
I nearly always travel by public transport, as it happens. Living in Central London, a car is the slowest and least convenient way to travel, most of the time.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
It's astonishing, isn't it?
It says terrible things about the moral compass of the West.
They see it like the rising of the Warsaw Ghetto. Not an act of terrorism
There are some terrible realities at play. Israel won't stop until the hostages are freed / their bodies recovered. Hamas will not hand over the hostages. Israel doesn't want to kill civilians so Hamas embeds itself with civilians.
For all that everyone seems to be putting all the emphasis on what Israel does, very little is aimed at what Hamas does. Either Israel goes after Hamas - internationally decried as a terrorist group - or it does not.
We all want peace for both sides. But a dictated peace now imposed by crushing international opinion would be a huge victory for Hamas and immediately lead to a rapid dismantling of "peace" and waves of attacks. Hamas would look to violently slaughter as many as possible and commit as many acts of barbarity as possible, knowing that Israel would then be dissuaded from retaliation by the hand-wringing west.
At its worst the IRA was pledged to getting the Brits off Ireland. Hamas is pledged to the extermination of Israel. Encouraging a pogrom against global Jewry. The two are not remotely equivalent.
I don't see any benefit to Israel from pounding on Gaza. At the end of that, there will still be Hamas. They may be a bit dented, but they will be as strong as ever.
In my opinion, it is disgraceful to call for a ceasefire until the hostages are released.
I get the impression that those calling for a ceasefire would be quite happy for a ceasefire to have happened immediately after Hamas had done the maximum amount of killing but before Israel had been able to do anything to defend itself.
I nearly always travel by public transport, as it happens. Living in Central London, a car is the slowest and least convenient way to travel, most of the time.
The slowest is walking through crowds of meandering tourists during half term weeks....
In my opinion, it is disgraceful to call for a ceasefire until the hostages are released.
Kudos to Hamas. By turning itself into ISIS then withdrawing back into the Gaza civilian population, it has defeated Israel. And this is turning into defeat.
Israel cannot rescue the hostages or even recover their bodies without going into Gaza. Which the international community is increasingly refusing to let it do. Hamas simply refuses, and ensures that any action against it would be a civilian bloodbath.
A ceasefire is imposed. Israel seen as a pariah. Then Hamas does it again in a few months. Rinse and repeat.
You cannot negotiate a peace with genocidal religious maniacs. So if Israel finds itself with its back against the wall, condemned by much of the world, with Hamas literally taunting both the state and Jews globally, what do we expect someone of Netanyahu's moral fibre to do?
The US bombed Iranian targets in Syria overnight. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that Israel is revising Operation Samson...
If the Conservatives want undecideds to vote for them then they need to stop the endless line of Conservative MPs appearing in the news for the wrong reasons.
A tax cut isn't going to make any difference when it seems every other day another Conservative MP is exposed as a bully or a sex offender or a sleazebag.
In my opinion, it is disgraceful to call for a ceasefire until the hostages are released.
I get the impression that those calling for a ceasefire would be quite happy for a ceasefire to have happened immediately after Hamas had done the maximum amount of killing but before Israel had been able to do anything to defend itself.
... and Netanyahuism comes from the idea that all such ceasefires and restraints on behaviour by Israel are somehow against Israel. "This time we will take the gloves off and not be stopped by the traitors and collaborators, blah blah blah"
Yes, according to the Yougov analysis they sound very similar to those sticking with the Conservatives at the moment. Focusing on persuading them to vote, however unenthusiastically, is surely going to be the top Tory priority. Their age and demographics indicate that they are people more likely to vote than most so it is not impossible.
I think that this is a point that Mike has made a few times over recent months in the context of the Labour lead. It looks like he was spot on.
A fair proportion of those will be active abstentions. They won't be persuaded.
Whilst it is good to see actual figures, I do not think many observers of politics will be surprised that relatively well-off women (probably grandmothers), living the affluent blue wall have fallen out of love with a party that shows little empathy and humanity, has overseen a catastrophic decline in public services, and created a cost of living crisis that is disproportionately hurting their children.
Were I CCHQ, I wouldn't be holding my breath that these voters will be returning to the fold any time soon. On the other hand those 'warm and cuddly' LibDems might sense a big opportunity.
Do people view the Lib Dem’s as “warm and cuddly.”
I don't, but my experience on the doorstep (albeit from at least 5 years go) was that that demographic certainly did.
If the Conservatives want undecideds to vote for them then they need to stop the endless line of Conservative MPs appearing in the news for the wrong reasons.
A tax cut isn't going to make any difference when it seems every other day another Conservative MP is exposed as a bully or a sex offender or a sleazebag.
To be fair, I thought Rishi had promised to get rid of the bullies by Xmas?
I posted the other day that one of the more significant aspects of the Israel vs multiple parties conflict to watch for in the coming days was the US setting down a marker to others to back off.
Im not sure the overnight strikes were a sufficient marker, its more likely to put the US on an escalation ladder due to the lack of deterrence value of that effort.
We will soon see.
Meanwhile a senior Hamas official has expressed disappointment at Hizbollahs efforts in opening a second front. Hizbollah has its own motivations and its own reasons not to have gone all in, either so far or indeed at all, not least the damage to itself that it will bring. Hamas is disposable to Iran, Hizbollah is not.
If the Conservatives want undecideds to vote for them then they need to stop the endless line of Conservative MPs appearing in the news for the wrong reasons.
A tax cut isn't going to make any difference when it seems every other day another Conservative MP is exposed as a bully or a sex offender or a sleazebag.
To be fair, I thought Rishi had promised to get rid of the bullies by Xmas?
I think he's said existing constituents can keep their much loved family bullies until the next election as long as they are registered and muzzled.
There are some terrible realities at play. Israel won't stop until the hostages are freed / their bodies recovered. Hamas will not hand over the hostages. Israel doesn't want to kill civilians so Hamas embeds itself with civilians.
For all that everyone seems to be putting all the emphasis on what Israel does, very little is aimed at what Hamas does. Either Israel goes after Hamas - internationally decried as a terrorist group - or it does not.
We all want peace for both sides. But a dictated peace now imposed by crushing international opinion would be a huge victory for Hamas and immediately lead to a rapid dismantling of "peace" and waves of attacks. Hamas would look to violently slaughter as many as possible and commit as many acts of barbarity as possible, knowing that Israel would then be dissuaded from retaliation by the hand-wringing west.
At its worst the IRA was pledged to getting the Brits off Ireland. Hamas is pledged to the extermination of Israel. Encouraging a pogrom against global Jewry. The two are not remotely equivalent.
Exactly this.
The one thing which needs to happen before everything else is for Hamas to abandon its charter - which calls for the destruction of Israel and all Jews anywhere in the world, accept the existence of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. Then there can be peace, a 2-state solution etc.,.
But there can be no peace or negotiation with a group with genocidal intent. It baffles and saddens me that so many refuse to see Hamas for what they are - despite them being brutally explicit, in words and deeds, about their aims. Until those aims change, peace - and pressure on Israel - have no chance. It doesn't really matter whether you call them terrorists or militants or state actors. Their aims are evil and unacceptable. They either change or will have to be eliminated.
If the Conservatives want undecideds to vote for them then they need to stop the endless line of Conservative MPs appearing in the news for the wrong reasons.
A tax cut isn't going to make any difference when it seems every other day another Conservative MP is exposed as a bully or a sex offender or a sleazebag.
To be fair, I thought Rishi had promised to get rid of the bullies by Xmas?
I think he's said existing constituents can keep their much loved family bullies until the next election as long as they are registered and muzzled.
If they keep some of their MPs muzzled it would certainly be an improvement.
If the Conservatives want undecideds to vote for them then they need to stop the endless line of Conservative MPs appearing in the news for the wrong reasons.
A tax cut isn't going to make any difference when it seems every other day another Conservative MP is exposed as a bully or a sex offender or a sleazebag.
Just how can there be so many wrong'uns in the PCP ? Every day another scandal.
I think it was in Tamworth, not Mid Beds, people in the street interviewed after the poll. After two or three said they switched, an elderly woman. "Um...rather disappointed the Conservatives didn't get in". I'd have said what about partygate, Pincher, Bone? Perhaps she'd never heard of them and wasn't bothered about the cost of living. Didn't sound particularly well off.
Most likely a losing Betfair punter.
Most people regard knowing the name of your MP as evidence of political anorakism.
They occasionally notice a particular policy or scandal - when it manages to cut through.
Boris Johnson got much of his lift from the fact that he could cut through and be *noticed* by everyday people.
This is why, I think, politics has become such a scramble of sound bites. Politicians desperate to get out of the “Politics” bin on the TV or in the papers - and escape to being talked about on Farcebook by “everyday people”…
The person mentioned in the original story from sbjme19 didn't actually say she didn't know who her MP (Pincher) was. She just said she was disappointed the Tories didn't win the by-election.
She might very well have known who Pincher was. Whether or not he was well known as a constituency MP before, his downfall (and its connection with the downfall of Johnson) was a pretty high-profile story, and it no doubt featured heavily in the Labour campaign.
But the lady's disappointment about the result might simply have had nothing to do with that. She might just be quite right wing, she might like Sunak, and think he's the best person to be PM. I'd disagree with her, and it certainly isn't a majority view... but it's not a wildly uncommon view.
Sbjme19 also mentioned she the "elderly woman... wasn't bothered about the cost of living". That's the Triple Lock for you!
I’m reminded of the quote - “We don’t do politics round here, we vote Labour”. It was in one of those constituencies where they were said to weigh the Labour vote, rather than count it.
For many (most?) people the way they vote is vague tribalism, with occasional scandals or policies intruding. The Conservative Party is down to the hard core of “we always vote Conservative”.
40% of those who voted in 2017 voted for the party led by the friend of Hamas. Of that 40%, four fifths did it again in 2019.
This is probably complete BS. BUT it is pretty detailed BS.
Rumors about Putin's death continue spreading. There have been absolutely no confirmation of this information. But it's a curious read, so I decided to translate this for you.
Have you seen the movie The Death of Stalin? This looks a little similar.
"Dear subscribers and guests of this channel! Yesterday afternoon, the health of Russian President Vladimir Putin began to deteriorate sharply. About 8:00 p.m. Moscow time on duty medics called an additional team of doctors, who upon arrival, after fifteen minutes, began resuscitation of the president, by that time Putin's condition was critical. At 8:42 p.m. Moscow time doctors stopped resuscitation and stated the death of the President. The security officers on duty at the door were informed of what had happened. On Dmitry Kochnev's personal order, the room in the presidential residence in Valdai, which had been converted into an intensive care ward where Putin died, was locked. The doctors remained locked in with the president's corpse. Security officials ordered the medics to calm down, keep quiet and wait. Dmitry Kochnev follows the instructions of Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Russian Security Council. Also on Kochnev's orders the security of the President's double has been strengthened. Now the issue is being resolved, including the further fate of the medics. Negotiations on the creation of a coalition of representatives of near-Putin elites under the leadership of Nikolai Patrushev to preserve the current regime and use Putin's double as president are almost finished. But!!! If it was possible to use a double while Putin was alive without any problems, and in extreme cases it was possible to present the real one, then after his (Putin's) death, any attempt to pass the double off as the president would be a coup d'état! Shortly before the death of the president, when it was already clear that he was dying, an option was considered to put Putin into a medically induced coma, thus preserving a "fresh corpse", so that after a clear decision with the successor and a smooth transfer of power to present to the public "freshly deceased", but this option, due to the death that has already occurred, has fallen away and how his entourage will act is also being decided. We will inform you as information becomes available." https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1717817270070603997?s=20
In my opinion, it is disgraceful to call for a ceasefire until the hostages are released.
I get the impression that those calling for a ceasefire would be quite happy for a ceasefire to have happened immediately after Hamas had done the maximum amount of killing but before Israel had been able to do anything to defend itself.
... and Netanyahuism comes from the idea that all such ceasefires and restraints on behaviour by Israel are somehow against Israel. "This time we will take the gloves off and not be stopped by the traitors and collaborators, blah blah blah"
Being civilised is an advantage, not a weakness.
But consider the reality.
Israel removing its settlements form Gaza has brought worse returns than aggressively increasing its settlements in the West Bank.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
From time to time in Northern Ireland and Spain. Not all across the Western world though.
If you go to a Celtic football match, people will be waving banners that combine the Palestinian and Irish flags with the caption "Two People, One Struggle".
In this, like in so many things, most people take a side and then defend it uncritically.
Hard to imagine something like that happening on the other side. You'd never see someone on here with an avatar combining the English and Israeli flags, for instance. That would never happen.
The most likely people would be Glasgow Rangers supporters, although possibly the UJ, rather than the English flag.
I posted the other day that one of the more significant aspects of the Israel vs multiple parties conflict to watch for in the coming days was the US setting down a marker to others to back off.
Im not sure the overnight strikes were a sufficient marker, its more likely to put the US on an escalation ladder due to the lack of deterrence value of that effort.
We will soon see.
Meanwhile a senior Hamas official has expressed disappointment at Hizbollahs efforts in opening a second front. Hizbollah has its own motivations and its own reasons not to have gone all in, either so far or indeed at all, not least the damage to itself that it will bring. Hamas is disposable to Iran, Hizbollah is not.
Well, they have been a bit of a fig leaf for intelligence oversight in recent years. Very much an excuse not to tell the legislative branch at large what is going on.
Anyone got any ideas about this weird case of the Indians sentenced to death for spying in Qatar?
If the Conservatives want undecideds to vote for them then they need to stop the endless line of Conservative MPs appearing in the news for the wrong reasons.
A tax cut isn't going to make any difference when it seems every other day another Conservative MP is exposed as a bully or a sex offender or a sleazebag.
To be fair, I thought Rishi had promised to get rid of the bullies by Xmas?
I would have thought that Halloween would be more appropriate than Christmas.
This is interesting. Who do the Germans think the greatest ever English footballer is. Not quite sure how Beckham, Lineker and Shearer got above Gascoigne.
German @SPORTBILD with with the 10 best English players EVER
1. Sir Bobby Charlton 2. Bobby Moore 3. Gordon Banks 4. Beckham 5. Sir Stanley Matthews 6. @alanshearer
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The search for a peaceful (or at least, more peaceful) solution might include the reestablishment of democracy in Gaza, and diplomatic pressure on Hamas via its backers, Qatar and Turkey, perhaps even Iran. (Note no mention of Israel.)
Yes, but that's a medium- or long-term thing. The question is what can happen *now*?
This has been a victory for Hamas, and a victory that will embolden them, Hizbollah and others to do similar spectaculars again in a year or three. They need to be dissuaded from that: and the best way is for them not to see it as a 'victory'. Israel seem to think they can only do that through trying to kill as many Hamas people as possible; I think that's correct in the short-term, and madness in the long-term. But Israel doing nothing is madness in the short, medium and long term.
It's sad that so many people (rightly) calling for Palestinian civilians to be protected put all the onus on Israel. I haven't seen many of them on here calling for Hamas to immediately release all prisoners to Israel without strings, and to stop the ongoing rocket attacks. Why are Palestinian civilians the only civilians that matter?
If we want peace, then Hamas must not do anything like this again. Otherwise you're calling for a very odd, one-sided form of 'peace'.
Literally no-one on here has said Hamas should keep the hostages because it goes without saying that of course they should release the hostages. Until that sentence I hadn't said it, simply because it is bleeding obvious.
Israels response is commented on more because they have a wider range of plausible options (none of which are good) not because people don't care about Israelis.
In have not yet heard a single person from Gaza or representing the Palestinian interest advocating the return of the hostages; nor has it featured bigly in the huge demonstrations in the west. The idea it is obvious to all is just not the case.
There are some terrible realities at play. Israel won't stop until the hostages are freed / their bodies recovered. Hamas will not hand over the hostages. Israel doesn't want to kill civilians so Hamas embeds itself with civilians.
For all that everyone seems to be putting all the emphasis on what Israel does, very little is aimed at what Hamas does. Either Israel goes after Hamas - internationally decried as a terrorist group - or it does not.
We all want peace for both sides. But a dictated peace now imposed by crushing international opinion would be a huge victory for Hamas and immediately lead to a rapid dismantling of "peace" and waves of attacks. Hamas would look to violently slaughter as many as possible and commit as many acts of barbarity as possible, knowing that Israel would then be dissuaded from retaliation by the hand-wringing west.
At its worst the IRA was pledged to getting the Brits off Ireland. Hamas is pledged to the extermination of Israel. Encouraging a pogrom against global Jewry. The two are not remotely equivalent.
Exactly this.
The one thing which needs to happen before everything else is for Hamas to abandon its charter - which calls for the destruction of Israel and all Jews anywhere in the world, accept the existence of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. Then there can be peace, a 2-state solution etc.,.
But there can be no peace or negotiation with a group with genocidal intent. It baffles and saddens me that so many refuse to see Hamas for what they are - despite them being brutally explicit, in words and deeds, about their aims. Until those aims change, peace - and pressure on Israel - have no chance. It doesn't really matter whether you call them terrorists or militants or state actors. Their aims are evil and unacceptable. They either change or will have to be eliminated.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The search for a peaceful (or at least, more peaceful) solution might include the reestablishment of democracy in Gaza, and diplomatic pressure on Hamas via its backers, Qatar and Turkey, perhaps even Iran. (Note no mention of Israel.)
Yes, but that's a medium- or long-term thing. The question is what can happen *now*?
This has been a victory for Hamas, and a victory that will embolden them, Hizbollah and others to do similar spectaculars again in a year or three. They need to be dissuaded from that: and the best way is for them not to see it as a 'victory'. Israel seem to think they can only do that through trying to kill as many Hamas people as possible; I think that's correct in the short-term, and madness in the long-term. But Israel doing nothing is madness in the short, medium and long term.
It's sad that so many people (rightly) calling for Palestinian civilians to be protected put all the onus on Israel. I haven't seen many of them on here calling for Hamas to immediately release all prisoners to Israel without strings, and to stop the ongoing rocket attacks. Why are Palestinian civilians the only civilians that matter?
If we want peace, then Hamas must not do anything like this again. Otherwise you're calling for a very odd, one-sided form of 'peace'.
Literally no-one on here has said Hamas should keep the hostages because it goes without saying that of course they should release the hostages. Until that sentence I hadn't said it, simply because it is bleeding obvious.
Israels response is commented on more because they have a wider range of plausible options (none of which are good) not because people don't care about Israelis.
In have not yet heard a single person from Gaza or representing the Palestinian interest advocating the return of the hostages; nor has it featured bigly in the huge demonstrations in the west. The idea it is obvious to all is just not the case.
In my opinion, it is disgraceful to call for a ceasefire until the hostages are released.
I get the impression that those calling for a ceasefire would be quite happy for a ceasefire to have happened immediately after Hamas had done the maximum amount of killing but before Israel had been able to do anything to defend itself.
... and Netanyahuism comes from the idea that all such ceasefires and restraints on behaviour by Israel are somehow against Israel. "This time we will take the gloves off and not be stopped by the traitors and collaborators, blah blah blah"
Being civilised is an advantage, not a weakness.
But consider the reality.
Israel removing its settlements form Gaza has brought worse returns than aggressively increasing its settlements in the West Bank.
Were there any settlers in the Gaza strip ? It seems cramped and desperately poor compared to the open (If mountainous) West Bank.
If the Conservatives want undecideds to vote for them then they need to stop the endless line of Conservative MPs appearing in the news for the wrong reasons.
A tax cut isn't going to make any difference when it seems every other day another Conservative MP is exposed as a bully or a sex offender or a sleazebag.
To be fair, I thought Rishi had promised to get rid of the bullies by Xmas?
I think he's said existing constituents can keep their much loved family bullies until the next election as long as they are registered and muzzled.
That's only fair, is presumably the argument (not mine). I was wondering yesterday how he would be dealing with the XLBs, given how he'd been so kind to the bankers, who are even less popular (I don't recall a petition from 1.5% of the population demanding that the bankers and their bonuses are left alone/reinstated).
Next, to exert so much control over his backbenchers. [edit: noneoftheabove got there first!]
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
Surely you must realise that supporting Palestine is not the same as supporting Hamas?
Just as supporting Israel is not the same as supporting starving Gaza of fuel, food and water so that hospitals are at the point of switching off life support systems for babies.
People are capable of nuance, even if you are not.
I was really put off by the number of PBers who saw the Hamas attack as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
In the face of that, it is easy to fall into a tribal back-and-forth, which, at least in part, explains why those upholding the pro-Palestinian/Gazan position have been so uncompromising in their opposition to Israel. I found myself explaning away the use of the word "jihad" a few days ago - something I regret now.
Similarly, In the face of a massive terror attack of unimaginable cruelty, it is tempting to be entirely uncompromising in your response.
Politics in the Middle East is complex and provocative, shock.
"... as a justification for the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. "
That's a valid position to hold. But the issue with it is this: what would you have Israel do? It's fine saying they should not respond in a way like this, but what is your *better* and *realistic* option for them to do, given Hamas's actions and desires?
Arguing for ethnic cleansing is repugnant. Pretending that it is Israel’s only option is not much better.
The path to a long-term solution is not an easy one. There’s not some easy formula that can be dashed off in a PB post. However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working. Israel could take positive measures towards peace, like stopping illegal settlements, expelling from the Cabinet politicians who call for the destruction of Palestine (and who did so before 7 Oct), and committing to removing the blockade of Gaza in due course.
Many terrorist groups and terrifying regimes have changed their ways. We found a resolution with the IRA. Bosnia is perhaps not a great success, but there is peace. One can look at the 1989 and 1991 Paris peace conferences on Cambodia.
Prior Israeli governments did better at this. No, a comprehensive a solution had not be found, but the situation was better and peace closer. They show a better way existed and thus still exists.
I'm not arguing for ethnic cleansing. But if left unchecked, the extremists in the region will lead us to one of two end-results within a few decades:
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence. *) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The search for a peaceful (or at least, more peaceful) solution might include the reestablishment of democracy in Gaza, and diplomatic pressure on Hamas via its backers, Qatar and Turkey, perhaps even Iran. (Note no mention of Israel.)
Yes, but that's a medium- or long-term thing. The question is what can happen *now*?
This has been a victory for Hamas, and a victory that will embolden them, Hizbollah and others to do similar spectaculars again in a year or three. They need to be dissuaded from that: and the best way is for them not to see it as a 'victory'. Israel seem to think they can only do that through trying to kill as many Hamas people as possible; I think that's correct in the short-term, and madness in the long-term. But Israel doing nothing is madness in the short, medium and long term.
It's sad that so many people (rightly) calling for Palestinian civilians to be protected put all the onus on Israel. I haven't seen many of them on here calling for Hamas to immediately release all prisoners to Israel without strings, and to stop the ongoing rocket attacks. Why are Palestinian civilians the only civilians that matter?
If we want peace, then Hamas must not do anything like this again. Otherwise you're calling for a very odd, one-sided form of 'peace'.
Literally no-one on here has said Hamas should keep the hostages because it goes without saying that of course they should release the hostages. Until that sentence I hadn't said it, simply because it is bleeding obvious.
Israels response is commented on more because they have a wider range of plausible options (none of which are good) not because people don't care about Israelis.
In have not yet heard a single person from Gaza or representing the Palestinian interest advocating the return of the hostages; nor has it featured bigly in the huge demonstrations in the west. The idea it is obvious to all is just not the case.
FPT: Has it ever happened before, that the response to a terrorist attack has been hundreds of thousands of protestors turning up across the Western world in support of the terrorists?
It's astonishing, isn't it?
It says terrible things about the moral compass of the West.
They see it like the rising of the Warsaw Ghetto. Not an act of terrorism
These people would see the rising in the Warsaw Ghetto as an act of terrorism.
OT for the Friday culture slot: not what it seems at all, but a genuinely interesting bit of urban heritage recording whose stupid Hallowe'en marketing is probably obscuring its real value:
If the Conservatives want undecideds to vote for them then they need to stop the endless line of Conservative MPs appearing in the news for the wrong reasons.
A tax cut isn't going to make any difference when it seems every other day another Conservative MP is exposed as a bully or a sex offender or a sleazebag.
Just how can there be so many wrong'uns in the PCP ? Every day another scandal.
Given how long some of them have been in parliament the proportion of 'rotten apples' would likely have been higher while they were in opposition before 2010.
Whether the behaviour was occurring back or whether it is from the corruptions of power then I don't know.
Comments
The taxpayer pays nurses. The private sector pays bankers. The more bankers earn, the more tax they pay. The more tax income provided, the more spending can happen.
Of course, the deficit could be reduced, but heaven forfend the political world consider the future beyond a single electoral cycle.
People thought Boris was warm and cuddly for ages.
If the guy had a shred of honesty he'd just say that he refuses to do anything about restricting guns.
Speaker Mike Johnson dismisses gun control: "The problem is the human heart. It's not guns ... this is not the time to talk about legislation."
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1717711644342599702
Or perhaps after a suitable pause for thoughts and prayers, he's planning to legislate on reforming the human heart ?
Chasing the agency for the company details so we can firm up the quote with an address. Agent says customer is agitated what is taking us so long. And this morning the agent confirms the address in Northern Ireland is DUBLIN.
Erm, thats not in Northern Ireland. So easy export. No paperwork. WTAF you stupid dumb bastard. Why have you wasted lots of people's time. "Well I did say it was in Ireland"
Happy Friday!
Compared to Tories who advocate “just stopping” the boats, for example.
And Good Morning everybody. Good to see Jack posting again, and I hope Big G is progressing well.
Besides- the private sector is just us, indirectly. We pay for bankers in the prices we pay for stuff and the slices skimmed off our savings. Unless financial activities are creating value (and my understanding is that quite a lot don't), the money would still be there and still be taxable, just in different hands.
*) A ME where Israel is destroyed, and no Jewish presence.
*) A ME where all of Palestine is under Jewish control.
Neither of these is a situation I want, but this is what the extremists on both sides want. Israel responding harshly moves a small step towards the second; Israel not responding to what Hamas does is a big stride towards the former.
"However, it is possible for Israel to strike against Hamas hard without, say, preventing hospitals from working."
Please mention these possibilities. What surgical knife does Israel have that can strike Hamas hard without imperilling Palestinian civilians?
I also note that your 'measures towards peace' are all Israeli actions, with I assume the (IMV vain) hope that Hamas and its backers will somehow go for peace. I might suggest that Hamas (and Hizbollah) stopping firing rockets at Israel, and releasing all the hostages to Israel with no strings attached, might be indications of good faith - and ones they should do as they started this mess. But I fear Hamas has zero good faith.
Both sides need to move if we are not going to end up with the two end points I mention above.
The guy is a nut.
Good for you for what you did.
I'd also argue that the Northern Ireland issue is a lot less intractable than the Israel one.
“What can Israel do to hit Hamas, in a way that won’t simply cause casualties and be futile?”
I could see targeted attacks on leadership doing something, but trying to kill Hamas fighters is a fools errand - they are easy to recruit.
Otherwise you are getting into late stage Vietnam strategy - we can bomb, and it demonstrates our resolve to the Russians and it is doing *something*. But actually is doing less than nothing to win the war.
I've yet to see any evidence of that, other than he's more polite than the average MAGA politician.
They occasionally notice a particular policy or scandal - when it manages to cut through.
Boris Johnson got much of his lift from the fact that he could cut through and be *noticed* by everyday people.
This is why, I think, politics has become such a scramble of sound bites. Politicians desperate to get out of the “Politics” bin on the TV or in the papers - and escape to being talked about on Farcebook by “everyday people”…
Bombing them won’t stop them, apart from wiping them out!
Sending thousands of soldiers into Gaza, patiently arresting and trying members of Hamas, and spending billions on infrastructure and public sector employment, isn’t an option for Israel; particularly as, unlike Northern Ireland, there’s no big element of the population that supports them.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/trading-and-moving-goods-in-and-out-of-northern-ireland
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accounting-for-vat-on-goods-moving-between-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-from-1-january-2021/accounting-for-vat-on-goods-moving-between-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-from-1-january-2021
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-can-bring-your-goods-into-northern-ireland-from-great-britain-without-paying-duty
Today I am going out looking for a species which is marked as extinct on the maps but all that means is that it hasn't been seen locally for about 50 years. Unfortunately the last recorder did not provide a grid reference and the site covers many square miles, most of which is very difficult of access.
There are two known extant sites for our target species in the UK and we are actually considering reintroduction from a 50 year old specimen in the museum...
He had a leading role in the Congressional effort to give the last election to Trump, so it's a closer relationship than that of Pence.
Seems to have become personally close, too.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/26/mike-johnson-house-speaker-55-things-to-know-00123593
...Johnson was part of Trump’s inner circle and traveled regularly with him on Air Force One while he was president. “It’s surreal,” he once told a Shreveport reporter. “When I call him, he calls back within a couple of hours.”
This has been a victory for Hamas, and a victory that will embolden them, Hizbollah and others to do similar spectaculars again in a year or three. They need to be dissuaded from that: and the best way is for them not to see it as a 'victory'. Israel seem to think they can only do that through trying to kill as many Hamas people as possible; I think that's correct in the short-term, and madness in the long-term. But Israel doing nothing is madness in the short, medium and long term.
It's sad that so many people (rightly) calling for Palestinian civilians to be protected put all the onus on Israel. I haven't seen many of them on here calling for Hamas to immediately release all prisoners to Israel without strings, and to stop the ongoing rocket attacks. Why are Palestinian civilians the only civilians that matter?
If we want peace, then Hamas must not do anything like this again. Otherwise you're calling for a very odd, one-sided form of 'peace'.
In reality you're not just doing customs paperwork to send Birmingham to Belfast. You then need to ask what the customer is going to do with the product and change the labelling accordingly.
Whereas if you go in from the south directly within the EU there is no paperwork. Especially as it turns out the customer is in the sodding Republic and not in NI as the idiot had claimed.
I saw a young Muslim woman in an abaya help walk an elderly Jewish chap in kippah over the road the other day, and it gave me so much hope. It's easy to pick sides in this, and forget that most people are probably just decent human beings.
She might very well have known who Pincher was. Whether or not he was well known as a constituency MP before, his downfall (and its connection with the downfall of Johnson) was a pretty high-profile story, and it no doubt featured heavily in the Labour campaign.
But the lady's disappointment about the result might simply have had nothing to do with that. She might just be quite right wing, she might like Sunak, and think he's the best person to be PM. I'd disagree with her, and it certainly isn't a majority view... but it's not a wildly uncommon view.
Sbjme19 also mentioned she the "elderly woman... wasn't bothered about the cost of living". That's the Triple Lock for you!
You lay out above two scenarios: one where Israel responds “harshly” and one where Israel does not respond. Fortunately there is an obvious third way between those.
Hamas releasing all the hostages, and Hamas and Hezbollah stopping attacks would be great steps towards peace. (Like you, I have little faith Hamas will do that in the short term.) My reply focused on Israeli actions because you asked “what would you have Israel do?” I’m not certain why you are criticising me for answering your question.
As for the hostages, there are already negotiations for their release (and some have been released). It is possible others have already been killed either by Hamas or by Israel bombing and shelling Hamas facilities.
Israels response is commented on more because they have a wider range of plausible options (none of which are good) not because people don't care about Israelis.
Malms wouldn’t be seen dead on a bus.
For all that everyone seems to be putting all the emphasis on what Israel does, very little is aimed at what Hamas does. Either Israel goes after Hamas - internationally decried as a terrorist group - or it does not.
We all want peace for both sides. But a dictated peace now imposed by crushing international opinion would be a huge victory for Hamas and immediately lead to a rapid dismantling of "peace" and waves of attacks. Hamas would look to violently slaughter as many as possible and commit as many acts of barbarity as possible, knowing that Israel would then be dissuaded from retaliation by the hand-wringing west.
At its worst the IRA was pledged to getting the Brits off Ireland. Hamas is pledged to the extermination of Israel. Encouraging a pogrom against global Jewry. The two are not remotely equivalent.
For many (most?) people the way they vote is vague tribalism, with occasional scandals or policies intruding. The Conservative Party is down to the hard core of “we always vote Conservative”.
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1717820605272105092
In my opinion, it is disgraceful to call for a ceasefire until the hostages are released.
And on the down side, numbers of dead people.
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1717676347781263688
Israel cannot rescue the hostages or even recover their bodies without going into Gaza. Which the international community is increasingly refusing to let it do. Hamas simply refuses, and ensures that any action against it would be a civilian bloodbath.
A ceasefire is imposed. Israel seen as a pariah. Then Hamas does it again in a few months. Rinse and repeat.
You cannot negotiate a peace with genocidal religious maniacs. So if Israel finds itself with its back against the wall, condemned by much of the world, with Hamas literally taunting both the state and Jews globally, what do we expect someone of Netanyahu's moral fibre to do?
The US bombed Iranian targets in Syria overnight. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that Israel is revising Operation Samson...
A tax cut isn't going to make any difference when it seems every other day another Conservative MP is exposed as a bully or a sex offender or a sleazebag.
Being civilised is an advantage, not a weakness.
"Li Keqiang: Ex-Chinese premier sidelined by Xi dies at 68 - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67235777
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(intelligence)
The one thing which needs to happen before everything else is for Hamas to abandon its charter - which calls for the destruction of Israel and all Jews anywhere in the world, accept the existence of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. Then there can be peace, a 2-state solution etc.,.
But there can be no peace or negotiation with a group with genocidal intent. It baffles and saddens me that so many refuse to see Hamas for what they are - despite them being brutally explicit, in words and deeds, about their aims. Until those aims change, peace - and pressure on Israel - have no chance. It doesn't really matter whether you call them terrorists or militants or state actors. Their aims are evil and unacceptable. They either change or will have to be eliminated.
Rumors about Putin's death continue spreading. There have been absolutely no confirmation of this information. But it's a curious read, so I decided to translate this for you.
Have you seen the movie The Death of Stalin? This looks a little similar.
"Dear subscribers and guests of this channel! Yesterday afternoon, the health of Russian President Vladimir Putin began to deteriorate sharply. About 8:00 p.m. Moscow time on duty medics called an additional team of doctors, who upon arrival, after fifteen minutes, began resuscitation of the president, by that time Putin's condition was critical. At 8:42 p.m. Moscow time doctors stopped resuscitation and stated the death of the President. The security officers on duty at the door were informed of what had happened. On Dmitry Kochnev's personal order, the room in the presidential residence in Valdai, which had been converted into an intensive care ward where Putin died, was locked. The doctors remained locked in with the president's corpse. Security officials ordered the medics to calm down, keep quiet and wait. Dmitry Kochnev follows the instructions of Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Russian Security Council. Also on Kochnev's orders the security of the President's double has been strengthened. Now the issue is being resolved, including the further fate of the medics. Negotiations on the creation of a coalition of representatives of near-Putin elites under the leadership of Nikolai Patrushev to preserve the current regime and use Putin's double as president are almost finished. But!!! If it was possible to use a double while Putin was alive without any problems, and in extreme cases it was possible to present the real one, then after his (Putin's) death, any attempt to pass the double off as the president would be a coup d'état! Shortly before the death of the president, when it was already clear that he was dying, an option was considered to put Putin into a medically induced coma, thus preserving a "fresh corpse", so that after a clear decision with the successor and a smooth transfer of power to present to the public "freshly deceased", but this option, due to the death that has already occurred, has fallen away and how his entourage will act is also being decided. We will inform you as information becomes available."
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1717817270070603997?s=20
Israel removing its settlements form Gaza has brought worse returns than aggressively increasing its settlements in the West Bank.
Anyone got any ideas about this weird case of the Indians sentenced to death for spying in Qatar?
German
@SPORTBILD
with with the 10 best English players EVER
1. Sir Bobby Charlton
2. Bobby Moore
3. Gordon Banks
4. Beckham
5. Sir Stanley Matthews
6.
@alanshearer
7.
@GaryLineker
8. Jimmy Greaves
9. Gascoigne
10. Sir Geoff Hurst
Can you live with the list Alan and Gary?
https://x.com/JanAageFjortoft/status/1717530338212163759?s=20
They know what Hamas wants and want it as well.
Next, to exert so much control over his backbenchers. [edit: noneoftheabove got there first!]
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/oct/27/historic-england-ghost-sign-photos-halloween-online-map
Whether the behaviour was occurring back or whether it is from the corruptions of power then I don't know.