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
I am not so sure. In my view, taking demographic criteria and then extrapolating it to say that people with these are likely to vote in a specific way is a fatal flaw with MRP polling - but that is for another thread. Much more effective would be a conjoint analysis (https://www.questionpro.com/blog/what-is-conjoint-analysis/), which attempts to establish the types of trade-offs people make when coming to a purchasing (in this case voting) decision. The downside is they are complex, time consuming and expensive.
When I was an agent, in an attempt to get a better level of granularity, I would always phrase the voting question as "How likely would you be to vote for...", using a 1 to 10 scale. You can then use that information, with some degree of accuracy, to estimate the number of voters who will actually turn out to vote for you on the day.
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.
The locals *were* extremely rude to the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger during the uprising.
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.
Civilised people are weirdly unwilling to believe that uncivilised people mean exactly what they say.
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.
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
I am not so sure. In my view, taking demographic criteria and then extrapolating it to say that people with these are likely to vote in a specific way is a fatal flaw with MRP polling - but that is for another thread. Much more effective would be a conjoint analysis (https://www.questionpro.com/blog/what-is-conjoint-analysis/), which attempts to establish the types of trade-offs people make when coming to a purchasing (in this case voting) decision. The downside is they are complex, time consuming and expensive.
When I was an agent, in an attempt to get a better level of granularity, I would always phrase the voting question as "How likely would you be to vote for...", using a 1 to 10 scale. You can then use that information, with some degree of accuracy, to estimate the number of voters who will actually turn out to vote for you on the day.
Yes - forced choice questions make for neat numbers. But bad data.
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.
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.
This is great of course, and reflects what most normal people think. As usual we support good people on all sides and oppose bad people on all sides.
Usually it is possible to turn that correct intuition into a practical policy. I support good Ukrainians and good Russians by wanting victory for the Ukrainians, peace and, if needed, a negotiated discussion of the borders backed by neutral mediation and fair referenda. Rational alternatives are available too.
In the Israel/Gaza/Palestine situation no-one can suggest even a glimmer of what non-unicorn policy would be if its aim is to 'support good people on all sides and oppose bad people on all sides'.
Boris Johnson and his former adviser Dominic Cummings sent “disgusting and misogynistic” WhatsApp messages that will be released by the Covid-19 inquiry, George Osborne has claimed.
On Tuesday, Cummings is due to give evidence at the public inquiry, while the former prime minister is expected to give evidence next month.
Osborne, the former chancellor, said: “I’ve got to be a little bit careful here — it’s a judicial inquiry. But from what I understand, there are some pretty staggering things that have been said on those WhatsApp messages not just by Boris Johnson, but key advisers like Dominic Cummings — really pretty disgusting language and misogynistic language. And I think if you didn’t think very highly of that period of government, you’re gonna feel even less highly after you’ve heard those messages next week.”
It would be actually impossible for me to 'feel even less highly' of Cumstain and Massive Johnson.
Osborne is hardly a paragon of feminism himself (remember The Email, most of which was just a helpful, if cringily sophomorically written, collation of Gideon’s Greatest Hits from Popbitch?).
At least Gideon never cheated on his wife, did he?
People who used to excuse his “cut her up and put her in the fridge” bile about Theresa May, will probably be faux outrageuexed about whatever Boris & Cummings have said. Just like those Celtic supporters with Israel & Palestine, you choose a side and stick to it
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.
This is great of course, and reflects what most normal people think. As usual we support good people on all sides and oppose bad people on all sides.
Usually it is possible to turn that correct intuition into a practical policy. I support good Ukrainians and good Russians by wanting victory for the Ukrainians, peace and, if needed, a negotiated discussion of the borders backed by neutral mediation and fair referenda. Rational alternatives are available too.
In the Israel/Gaza/Palestine situation no-one can suggest even a glimmer of what non-unicorn policy would be if its aim is to 'support good people on all sides and oppose bad people on all sides'.
It is notable that such outreach is violently attacked by The Men Of Violence, in conflicts around the world.
They find the idea of people from their side treating the other side as humans particularly offensive.
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?
From time to time in Northern Ireland and Spain. Not all across the Western world though.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
Two cheeks, one arsehole.
Not a good metaphor. That implies symmetry. But outsiders often do not realise that one of those so-called cheeks had on it much of the mass of the Protestant Unionist-nativist ascendancy and Tory Party, certainly in the west central belt and within very much living memory.
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
Gazza and the stereotypical German are polar opposites. Beckham, Lineker, Shearer closely aligned to German football psyche of hardwork and efficiency.
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.
Civilised people are weirdly unwilling to believe that uncivilised people mean exactly what they say.
Some anthropologists will go to enormous lengths to deny "bad" actions by societies they study. Without stopping to ask, if the people in those societies would regard the actions as bad.
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
Gazza and the stereotypical German are polar opposites. Beckham, Lineker, Shearer closely aligned to German football psyche of hardwork and efficiency.
Is Harry Kane not there because he’s still playing? He’s scored more goals & appeared in more big games for England than all of those players I think
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
You're surprised that Gascoigne - a man whose sole career honour was an FA Cup* - is below Lineker, Shearer and Beckham... yet not at all bothered that Sir Geoff Hurst, the first man to score a hat-trick in a World Cup Final, is below all of them?
I'm trying to recall who the hat-trick was against... it'll come to me.
* No, I'm not counting the Scottish Premiership with Rangers. My gran could've won the Scottish Premiership with Rangers at that time. Indeed, I'm not 100% sure she didn't - she was quite sprightly in her 80s.
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.
I dont believe pb.com is big in Gaza (yet).
Time it was.
I suspect they may have more important things to consider at the moment, but yes it would be great if they could move onto betting on by elections at some point.
To give a less flippant answer, if I was active on a forum with lots of Palestinians on it, then I may well have said "release the hostages". As I am on a forum where I assume everyone (at least active) wants the hostages released, I see no point in saying it, let alone demanding that other posters say it, before they are entitled to discuss the Israeli response.
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:
We had a 1920s HMV ad mural here which was v faded so when they eventually redeveloped the building they restored it to its former glory as a nice nod to history.
Since it's Friday, off topic pics of a self-building friend's "in roof" solar panels on his house that I just ran across. I think I once wanted to post these, and could not find a pic. With added Hound of the Baskervilles.
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
Gazza and the stereotypical German are polar opposites. Beckham, Lineker, Shearer closely aligned to German football psyche of hardwork and efficiency.
Is Harry Kane not there because he’s still playing? He’s scored more goals & appeared in more big games for England than all of those players I think
I'd have him similar to Shearer and Lineker, another couple of years at the same level and he should be ahead. Beckham is a tough one to place but 4 is too high. Kane for Geoff Hurst and its not a bad top 10.
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.
I dont believe pb.com is big in Gaza (yet).
Time it was.
I suspect they may have more important things to consider at the moment, but yes it would be great if they could move onto betting on by elections at some point.
To give a less flippant answer, if I was active on a forum with lots of Palestinians on it, then I may well have said "release the hostages". As I am on a forum where I assume everyone (at least active) wants the hostages released, I see no point in saying it, let alone demanding that other posters say it, before they are entitled to discuss the Israeli response.
I think both the points we are making are fair. Though detail and sequencing matter a lot in this horrible matter.
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.
It's actually worse than that: the only reason we only rarely see the same behaviour (rocket attacks, incursions etc) from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other groups on the West Bank that we do from Gaza, is that Israel maintains a military and police presence there, including a virtual stranglehold over major towns and cities. In Gaza, they had relative freedom to manage their own affairs: Hamas immediately took over, slaughtered all the "moderates" and turned the whole place into a military base. The West Bank would look exactly the same in a few years if Israel ever backed off - the PA is weak, not particularly popular and would be overthrown by terrorist elements in a heartbeat if they had space to operate.
Which helps explain why there is very little appetite in Israel for any sort of two/three state solution until the other side shows any sort of sign they actually want it and have the means to ensure it works.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
Two cheeks, one arsehole.
Not a good metaphor. That implies symmetry. But outsiders often do not realise that one of those so-called cheeks had on it much of the mass of the Protestant Unionist-nativist ascendancy and Tory Party, certainly in the west central belt and within very much living memory.
The people who punch up are as obnoxious as those who punch down.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
Two cheeks, one arsehole.
Not a good metaphor. That implies symmetry. But outsiders often do not realise that one of those so-called cheeks had on it much of the mass of the Protestant Unionist-nativist ascendancy and Tory Party, certainly in the west central belt and within very much living memory.
Yep, it's not so much historical grievance with that cheek, but very much a burning contemporary one; the erosion of their 'culture', the ebbing of the Union, them no longer having the whip hand, Rangers being shite, all inspire a rage laced through with a paranoid victimhood.
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?
From time to time in Northern Ireland and Spain. Not all across the Western world though.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
Two cheeks, one arsehole.
Not a good metaphor. That implies symmetry. But outsiders often do not realise that one of those so-called cheeks had on it much of the mass of the Protestant Unionist-nativist ascendancy and Tory Party, certainly in the west central belt and within very much living memory.
The people who punch up are as obnoxious as those who punch down.
I'd never come across that expression until I read it on PB!
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
You're surprised that Gascoigne - a man whose sole career honour was an FA Cup* - is below Lineker, Shearer and Beckham... yet not at all bothered that Sir Geoff Hurst, the first man to score a hat-trick in a World Cup Final, is below all of them?
I'm trying to recall who the hat-trick was against... it'll come to me.
* No, I'm not counting the Scottish Premiership with Rangers. My gran could've won the Scottish Premiership with Rangers at that time. Indeed, I'm not 100% sure she didn't - she was quite sprightly in her 80s.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
Two cheeks, one arsehole.
Not a good metaphor. That implies symmetry. But outsiders often do not realise that one of those so-called cheeks had on it much of the mass of the Protestant Unionist-nativist ascendancy and Tory Party, certainly in the west central belt and within very much living memory.
The people who punch up are as obnoxious as those who punch down.
But they think they have moral licence to indulge their basest instincts - and give free reign to their prejudices - because of it.
That's why you read so much about Gammons and Zionists.
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.
I dont believe pb.com is big in Gaza (yet).
Ismail Haniyeh is probably a regular poster.
Opinion Polls would be a bit predictable...
Part of the understated joy of living in a broadly liberal society is the nuts things that proliferate. The absence of laws governing what you put on pizza, websites devoted to things like arcane by elections in Tredegar and Tiree, the existence of an Austen Allegro Appreciation Society, the fact that reading the London Review of Books is not compulsory and many other freedoms.....
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
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
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
You're surprised that Gascoigne - a man whose sole career honour was an FA Cup* - is below Lineker, Shearer and Beckham... yet not at all bothered that Sir Geoff Hurst, the first man to score a hat-trick in a World Cup Final, is below all of them?
I'm trying to recall who the hat-trick was against... it'll come to me.
* No, I'm not counting the Scottish Premiership with Rangers. My gran could've won the Scottish Premiership with Rangers at that time. Indeed, I'm not 100% sure she didn't - she was quite sprightly in her 80s.
How come a cappuccino, bottle of mineral water and a massive fat cannolo seems like a perfectly sensible breakfast in Sicily - indeed ideal - yet I would barf at the idea in London?
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
Oh, sure. But what I'm focussing on is the asymmetry as a historical and political fact - not what it supposedly justifies or doesn't. Hell, given that the other approach is "shut up and know your place", going on about punching up or not isn't much use anyway.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
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.
A good friend of mine, who is an avid Celtic supporter, has been disgusted with the repeated mass displays of Palestine flags and scarves at Celtic matches since October 7th.
We’re they bothered about it before then ? It’s not something that has only just started to happen it’s being going on a while.
The catholic minority in Scotland has always felt oppressed, historically for very good reasons. They have a natural empathy with other oppressed groups and that includes the Palestinians. So I think it’s fair to say that it has been there for a long time but I have never seen it go mainstream like this. It’s quite hard for an outsider to get their head around.
Maybe @JackW can give a better historical perspective.
The Most Oppressed People Ever, as Ruth Dudley Edwards puts it.
Some people cling on to historic grievances, like a security blanket, decades after they’ve ceased to be relevant.
Nothing like thousands of one’s fellow countrymen joyously bellowing out we’re up to our knees in Fenian blood every Saturday to refresh one’s sense of historic grievance.
Two cheeks, one arsehole.
Not a good metaphor. That implies symmetry. But outsiders often do not realise that one of those so-called cheeks had on it much of the mass of the Protestant Unionist-nativist ascendancy and Tory Party, certainly in the west central belt and within very much living memory.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
Really? As opposed to the social equality of.. what period in British history?
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
Really? As opposed to the social equality of.. what period in British history?
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
The British Right is now embracing pacifism. When did that start?
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.
It's actually worse than that: the only reason we only rarely see the same behaviour (rocket attacks, incursions etc) from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other groups on the West Bank that we do from Gaza, is that Israel maintains a military and police presence there, including a virtual stranglehold over major towns and cities. In Gaza, they had relative freedom to manage their own affairs: Hamas immediately took over, slaughtered all the "moderates" and turned the whole place into a military base. The West Bank would look exactly the same in a few years if Israel ever backed off - the PA is weak, not particularly popular and would be overthrown by terrorist elements in a heartbeat if they had space to operate.
Which helps explain why there is very little appetite in Israel for any sort of two/three state solution until the other side shows any sort of sign they actually want it and have the means to ensure it works.
The only way of separating the Gazan population from Hamas will to be to show them that they will be more prosperous and safer without Hamas. This will require a long term solution involving moderates from all sides. Unfortunately, politicians don’t do long term, in case it affects their chances of being elected.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
Really? As opposed to the social equality of.. what period in British history?
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
The British Right is now embracing pacifism. When did that start?
What is this, apparently united, "British Right" ?
@PME_Politics provides a demographic profile of this group. Compared to Tory defectors, they are much more likely to be female, more likely to be retired and live in the South, and less likely to have a mortgage or a degree
Well that's bemusing as I'm a 2019 Tory voter that is now a don't know.
Male, working, in the North, with both a mortgage and a degree.
So got every single one of those descriptors backwards.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
Really? As opposed to the social equality of.. what period in British history?
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
The British Right is now embracing pacifism. When did that start?
What is this, apparently united, "British Right" ?
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
You're surprised that Gascoigne - a man whose sole career honour was an FA Cup* - is below Lineker, Shearer and Beckham... yet not at all bothered that Sir Geoff Hurst, the first man to score a hat-trick in a World Cup Final, is below all of them?
I'm trying to recall who the hat-trick was against... it'll come to me.
* No, I'm not counting the Scottish Premiership with Rangers. My gran could've won the Scottish Premiership with Rangers at that time. Indeed, I'm not 100% sure she didn't - she was quite sprightly in her 80s.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
It is vile, corrosive nonsense
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
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
With only one defensive player plus a goalkeeper it might suggest why England underachieve.
Actually, England has a good all-time defensive record (under one goal per game on average) - better than Germany or France and on a par with Italy.
That's all a bit misleading in the sense it depends who you're playing etc, but England's problem really isn't that they leak a lot of goals. It's more that they've tended to be a decent but not absolutely top tier team - so they usually deal pretty efficiently with the games they ought on paper to win, but often get found out in the later stages up against the very best.
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
You're surprised that Gascoigne - a man whose sole career honour was an FA Cup* - is below Lineker, Shearer and Beckham... yet not at all bothered that Sir Geoff Hurst, the first man to score a hat-trick in a World Cup Final, is below all of them?
I'm trying to recall who the hat-trick was against... it'll come to me.
* No, I'm not counting the Scottish Premiership with Rangers. My gran could've won the Scottish Premiership with Rangers at that time. Indeed, I'm not 100% sure she didn't - she was quite sprightly in her 80s.
Since it's Friday, off topic pics of a self-building friend's "in roof" solar panels on his house that I just ran across. I think I once wanted to post these, and could not find a pic. With added Hound of the Baskervilles.
Looks well, although it sounds like a bit of a pain doing it that way, rather than slapping on top. More robust to wind though?
What's with the OSB over the roof? Not seen that before, just timber, membrane and tiles in the builds I've seen including our own extension. Does it enable less of the 'strutural' timber due to the rigidity from the OSBs?
ETA: Solar panels require it, if putting in-roof, do they (the OSB) for support? Then you need to do the whole roof oftherwise the panels stand proud still?
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
It is vile, corrosive nonsense
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
And it’s even worse in America
Why do you fetishize 'white working class men'? Unlike you I hail from those ranks and, believe me, you really wouldn't want to know a good number of them.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
'Punching up/down' seeks to capture the (obvious and important) difference between the powerful mocking the powerless and vice versa. We could drop the expression but there seems little point since we'd only need another one.
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.
Have you ever been to the area? You really should go.
Some years ago I was in Beirut at a meeting with Procter and Gamble for a shampoo ad. The P& G team were about six or seven. The models stylist and hairdresser were from the UK the P&G team from the US Germany and Ireland with the local team based in Saudi Arabia. The production was Lebanese and the agency people were again assorted. Probably about twenty in total. The meeting was held in Grey advertising's very modern office.
At one end of the room was a giant TV playing continuously. On it was footage of Israeli hellicopters hovering over buildings and then after a pause the building underneath was blasted to smithereens. We had no sound just english subtitles rolling continuously. I have no idea how many buildings were flattened during our four hour meeting but it was dozens at least. All interspersed with bodies ambulances and bewildered children looking lost. Nothing at all like the airbrushed stuff we see here on the BBC taken from miles away.
At lunch I was shellshocked but apart from my English team the others had seen it many times before. They were killing goldfish in a bowl. They all knew it and all they could do was shrug
This is not a "pogrom against world Jewry" this is a fight for rights and a humanity they and their children are being denied. Where you get this nonsense from I can't imagine? I'm Jewish but if anyone thinks this gives me anything in common with that one eyed country they're mistaken.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
Really? As opposed to the social equality of.. what period in British history?
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
The British Right is now embracing pacifism. When did that start?
What is this, apparently united, "British Right" ?
Er...
The British Right cover the distance between, say Orange Book Lib Dems and Roderick Spode.
Much as the British Left covers the distance between people who Piers Corbyn thinks of as loonies, to the left hand side of the Lib Dems.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
It is vile, corrosive nonsense
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
And it’s even worse in America
Why do you fetishize 'white working class men'? Unlike you I hail from those ranks and, believe me, you really wouldn't want to know a good number of them.
He's going to have white bread with his "tea" and start using a definite article in front of "Asda".
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
Calling a spade a shovel is another one.
A spade and a shovel are completely different tools. As anyone who has actually dug a hole will tell you.
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" "Everything happens for a reason" "You can do anything if you put your mind to it"
3 off the top of my head. Tip: If anyone wants to really bug me, use one of these.
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
And “beware of Greeks bearing gifts”. I was chatting to the late Aristotle Onassis and he was almost tearful about how he would turn up at a friend’s birthday party with a beautifully wrapped Rolex and watch everyone shift away from him looking at him suspiciously.
The misinterpretation of that one saying ruined a humble friendly man’s life.
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" "Everything happens for a reason" "You can do anything if you put your mind to it"
3 off the top of my head. Tip: If anyone wants to really bug me, use one of these.
Isn't "everything happens for a reason" one of the bases of science - or do you just object to the idea of causation ?
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
Really? As opposed to the social equality of.. what period in British history?
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
The British Right is now embracing pacifism. When did that start?
What is this, apparently united, "British Right" ?
Er...
The British Right cover the distance between, say Orange Book Lib Dems and Roderick Spode.
Much as the British Left covers the distance between people who Piers Corbyn thinks of as loonies, to the left hand side of the Lib Dems.
That's a fair definition of the British Right. But for any of that group to start claiming 'oppressed minority' status is rather silly.
Back track on Tamworth lady she didn't say not worried about cost of living, I was merely listing what I'd have asked her. Re Tory MPs, I'm not sure they help if they're on for the "right" reasons. Hunt from Ipswich was saying British people feel uncomfortable in town centres because nobody around them is speaking English. You could see Sophy Ridge was really struggling to keep a straight face.
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" "Everything happens for a reason" "You can do anything if you put your mind to it"
3 off the top of my head. Tip: If anyone wants to really bug me, use one of these.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
Really? As opposed to the social equality of.. what period in British history?
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
The British Right is now embracing pacifism. When did that start?
What is this, apparently united, "British Right" ?
Er...
The British Right cover the distance between, say Orange Book Lib Dems and Roderick Spode.
Much as the British Left covers the distance between people who Piers Corbyn thinks of as loonies, to the left hand side of the Lib Dems.
That's a fair definition of the British Right. But for any of that group to start claiming 'oppressed minority' status is rather silly.
The problem with oppression matrix politics, is that it ignores one small item.
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
And “beware of Greeks bearing gifts”. I was chatting to the late Aristotle Onassis and he was almost tearful about how he would turn up at a friend’s birthday party with a beautifully wrapped Rolex and watch everyone shift away from him looking at him suspiciously.
The misinterpretation of that one saying ruined a humble friendly man’s life.
You are Taki, and I claim my bag of Bolivian marching powder.
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.
"It goes without saying..."
Actually, it needs shouting, loudly and strongly. Why do people scream about Israel's responsibilities, but want silence over Hamas's?
Release the hostages to Israel. Stop the missile attacks. And yes, Israel needs to act as well. But actions cannot be one sided.
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" "Everything happens for a reason" "You can do anything if you put your mind to it"
3 off the top of my head. Tip: If anyone wants to really bug me, use one of these.
Isn't "everything happens for a reason" one of the bases of science - or do you just object to the idea of causation ?
Heisenberg has entered the chat, at random, and with no evident reason.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
'Punching up/down' seeks to capture the (obvious and important) difference between the powerful mocking the powerless and vice versa. We could drop the expression but there seems little point since we'd only need another one.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
Really? As opposed to the social equality of.. what period in British history?
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
The British Right is now embracing pacifism. When did that start?
What is this, apparently united, "British Right" ?
Er...
The British Right cover the distance between, say Orange Book Lib Dems and Roderick Spode.
Much as the British Left covers the distance between people who Piers Corbyn thinks of as loonies, to the left hand side of the Lib Dems.
That's a fair definition of the British Right. But for any of that group to start claiming 'oppressed minority' status is rather silly.
Depressed minority may be more accurate, they've shat the bed so comprehensively that they may have ruined the chances for any shade of right outside don't frighten the Mail Starmerism in the UK for a generation.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
'Punching up/down' seeks to capture the (obvious and important) difference between the powerful mocking the powerless and vice versa. We could drop the expression but there seems little point since we'd only need another one.
Not really.
Punching anyone is not OK.
And mocking anyone is OK.
With the usual exceptions for self defence (which includes defending others) when societal norms on violence have broken down.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
'Punching up/down' seeks to capture the (obvious and important) difference between the powerful mocking the powerless and vice versa. We could drop the expression but there seems little point since we'd only need another one.
Not really.
Punching anyone is not OK.
And mocking anyone is OK.
I hope 'nosebreaker' Malms feels suitably rebuked.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
I always regarded 'punching up' as simply the mocking the powerful. But we live in a time now where the oiks are increasingly ordered to know their place.
Really? As opposed to the social equality of.. what period in British history?
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
The British Right is now embracing pacifism. When did that start?
What is this, apparently united, "British Right" ?
Er...
The British Right cover the distance between, say Orange Book Lib Dems and Roderick Spode.
Much as the British Left covers the distance between people who Piers Corbyn thinks of as loonies, to the left hand side of the Lib Dems.
That's a fair definition of the British Right. But for any of that group to start claiming 'oppressed minority' status is rather silly.
Depressed minority may be more accurate, they've shat the bed so comprehensively that they may have ruined the chances for any shade of right outside don't frighten the Mail Starmerism in the UK for a generation.
Another day, another 20%+ Labour lead. Techne 21%.
Polling 25-26 October.
The mean of the last 10 national opinion polls is:
Conservative 25.4% Labour 46.4% LibDems 10.5%
Mean Labour lead: 21%
'Mean Labour'? This latest rebrand is perhaps a bit too honest?
Ha, you just wait for the morning after the landslide. SKS addresses the nation, he's behind the desk, a close-up on the face, not a trace now of what was there before, nice but dull has gone and in its place, pure steel. He stares down the camera for a long moment and then speaks:
"Right, now listen to this and listen very carefully ..."
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
'Punching up/down' seeks to capture the (obvious and important) difference between the powerful mocking the powerless and vice versa. We could drop the expression but there seems little point since we'd only need another one.
Not really.
Punching anyone is not OK.
And mocking anyone is OK.
I hope 'nosebreaker' Malms feels suitably rebuked.
Careful. You wouldn’t like Malms when he’s angry. Which is all the time.
Another day, another 20%+ Labour lead. Techne 21%.
Polling 25-26 October.
The mean of the last 10 national opinion polls is:
Conservative 25.4% Labour 46.4% LibDems 10.5%
Mean Labour lead: 21%
'Mean Labour'? This latest rebrand is perhaps a bit too honest?
Ha, you just wait for the morning after the landslide. SKS addresses the nation, he's behind the desk, a close-up on the face, not a trace now of what was there before, nice but dull has gone and in its place, pure steel. He stares down the camera for a long moment and then speaks:
"Right, now listen to this and listen very carefully ..."
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
It is vile, corrosive nonsense
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
And it’s even worse in America
Why do you fetishize 'white working class men'? Unlike you I hail from those ranks and, believe me, you really wouldn't want to know a good number of them.
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:
We had a 1920s HMV ad mural here which was v faded so when they eventually redeveloped the building they restored it to its former glory as a nice nod to history.
Directly relevant to what I'm involved in. Wifey wants to put up a sign for her new shop as well as a couple of plaques on either side of the door to cover the holes where plaques used to be.
The council's built heritage manager has been out to have a look and is supportive - especially as the council has a firm policy of trying to retain commercial buildings as commercial.
But to proceed with the various applications the council is asking for proof there were previous signs in place. And the only one I can find showing the previous Union Bank of Scotland signs is old and fuzzy...
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" "Everything happens for a reason" "You can do anything if you put your mind to it"
3 off the top of my head. Tip: If anyone wants to really bug me, use one of these.
Isn't "everything happens for a reason" one of the bases of science - or do you just object to the idea of causation ?
I suppose it is, yes. And that's ok, come to think of it, very much so. But it's never used that way. You always tend to hear it in the mumbojumbo platitudinal sense in response to something awful happening.
Back track on Tamworth lady she didn't say not worried about cost of living, I was merely listing what I'd have asked her. Re Tory MPs, I'm not sure they help if they're on for the "right" reasons. Hunt from Ipswich was saying British people feel uncomfortable in town centres because nobody around them is speaking English. You could see Sophy Ridge was really struggling to keep a straight face.
Can be a bit puzzling if everyone's speaking broad Suffolk.
Although we got a taxi in Ipswich once and the 'brown' driver spoke better English than wot I done. Really nice chap, too!
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.
"It goes without saying..."
Actually, it needs shouting, loudly and strongly. Why do people scream about Israel's responsibilities, but want silence over Hamas's?
Release the hostages to Israel. Stop the missile attacks. And yes, Israel needs to act as well. But actions cannot be one sided.
I don't think it does "go without saying." You're right.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
'Punching up/down' seeks to capture the (obvious and important) difference between the powerful mocking the powerless and vice versa. We could drop the expression but there seems little point since we'd only need another one.
Not really.
Punching anyone is not OK.
And mocking anyone is OK.
Oh god we're going reductive and binary and hyper-literal. Bye bye.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
It is vile, corrosive nonsense
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
And it’s even worse in America
Why do you fetishize 'white working class men'? Unlike you I hail from those ranks and, believe me, you really wouldn't want to know a good number of them.
He's going to have white bread with his "tea" and start using a definite article in front of "Asda".
I very much doubt it. But even if I do I’m never going to sit down on my settee with a cuppa wearing my Anarchist tee shirt and watch “One Foot in the Grave” and “Keeping up Appearances” for the seventh time
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:
We had a 1920s HMV ad mural here which was v faded so when they eventually redeveloped the building they restored it to its former glory as a nice nod to history.
Directly relevant to what I'm involved in. Wifey wants to put up a sign for her new shop as well as a couple of plaques on either side of the door to cover the holes where plaques used to be.
The council's built heritage manager has been out to have a look and is supportive - especially as the council has a firm policy of trying to retain commercial buildings as commercial.
But to proceed with the various applications the council is asking for proof there were previous signs in place. And the only one I can find showing the previous Union Bank of Scotland signs is old and fuzzy...
Presumably you tried looking not only for building records but street records/photos in
(a) Canmore, and HES listed buildings records? (b) Scran (maybe through local library)?
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.
"It goes without saying..."
Actually, it needs shouting, loudly and strongly. Why do people scream about Israel's responsibilities, but want silence over Hamas's?
Release the hostages to Israel. Stop the missile attacks. And yes, Israel needs to act as well. But actions cannot be one sided.
I'm not screaming anything about anything.
If I was talking to a Palestinian audience I would talk about what they could do. If I was talking to an Israeli audience I would talk about what they could do.
I am not talking to either, but a bunch of mostly Brits with an interest in politics and/or gambling. The little here I say here is mostly on the game theory side of neither side having good options, as it is that interests me, and some partisans on both sides assume it could be fixed if only the "other" side changed, which I do not believe to be the case. Peace when it comes will be through an unexpected, unpredictable path as the predictable ones all lead to perpetual conflict.
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
You're surprised that Gascoigne - a man whose sole career honour was an FA Cup* - is below Lineker, Shearer and Beckham... yet not at all bothered that Sir Geoff Hurst, the first man to score a hat-trick in a World Cup Final, is below all of them?
I'm trying to recall who the hat-trick was against... it'll come to me.
* No, I'm not counting the Scottish Premiership with Rangers. My gran could've won the Scottish Premiership with Rangers at that time. Indeed, I'm not 100% sure she didn't - she was quite sprightly in her 80s.
Back track on Tamworth lady she didn't say not worried about cost of living, I was merely listing what I'd have asked her. Re Tory MPs, I'm not sure they help if they're on for the "right" reasons. Hunt from Ipswich was saying British people feel uncomfortable in town centres because nobody around them is speaking English. You could see Sophy Ridge was really struggling to keep a straight face.
They should just take an occassional holiday to Benidorm to get their fix as required.
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:
We had a 1920s HMV ad mural here which was v faded so when they eventually redeveloped the building they restored it to its former glory as a nice nod to history.
Directly relevant to what I'm involved in. Wifey wants to put up a sign for her new shop as well as a couple of plaques on either side of the door to cover the holes where plaques used to be.
The council's built heritage manager has been out to have a look and is supportive - especially as the council has a firm policy of trying to retain commercial buildings as commercial.
But to proceed with the various applications the council is asking for proof there were previous signs in place. And the only one I can find showing the previous Union Bank of Scotland signs is old and fuzzy...
Just Photoshop it. Or get somebody off Fiverr to do it if.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
It is vile, corrosive nonsense
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
And it’s even worse in America
Why do you fetishize 'white working class men'? Unlike you I hail from those ranks and, believe me, you really wouldn't want to know a good number of them.
Excellent revelation from yesterday’s visit to Ortigia’s defiant Norman castle
The word “grenade” - as in “hand grenade” - derives from the old French “pomme grenata”, because the original, ceramic grenades looked like pomegranates
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
It is vile, corrosive nonsense
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
And it’s even worse in America
Why do you fetishize 'white working class men'? Unlike you I hail from those ranks and, believe me, you really wouldn't want to know a good number of them.
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" "Everything happens for a reason" "You can do anything if you put your mind to it"
3 off the top of my head. Tip: If anyone wants to really bug me, use one of these.
'Like cures like' is my particular (least) favourite.
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
You're surprised that Gascoigne - a man whose sole career honour was an FA Cup* - is below Lineker, Shearer and Beckham... yet not at all bothered that Sir Geoff Hurst, the first man to score a hat-trick in a World Cup Final, is below all of them?
I'm trying to recall who the hat-trick was against... it'll come to me.
* No, I'm not counting the Scottish Premiership with Rangers. My gran could've won the Scottish Premiership with Rangers at that time. Indeed, I'm not 100% sure she didn't - she was quite sprightly in her 80s.
Broadly speaking our tiniest glimmer involves South Africa, India and New Zealand winning all their matches (Except us vs India); us winning all ours and then some upsets by the other lower placed teams against Australia.
Betfair reckons this sequence followed by us winning the semis and final is 299-1.
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" "Everything happens for a reason" "You can do anything if you put your mind to it"
3 off the top of my head. Tip: If anyone wants to really bug me, use one of these.
'Like cures like' is my particular (least) favourite.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
It is vile, corrosive nonsense
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
And it’s even worse in America
Why do you fetishize 'white working class men'? Unlike you I hail from those ranks and, believe me, you really wouldn't want to know a good number of them.
Twat
What brought about this bitchiness?
You being a twat
I'm sorry. I'll go away. You won't ever hear from me no more!
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
It is vile, corrosive nonsense
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
And it’s even worse in America
Why do you fetishize 'white working class men'? Unlike you I hail from those ranks and, believe me, you really wouldn't want to know a good number of them.
Twat
What brought about this bitchiness?
You being a twat
I'm sorry. I'll go away. You won't ever hear from me no more!
With this talk of "punching up" etc, I'd note that another phrase that annoys me is "don't kick a man when he's down".
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" "Everything happens for a reason" "You can do anything if you put your mind to it"
3 off the top of my head. Tip: If anyone wants to really bug me, use one of these.
It is what it is gaining depressing popularity.
Yes, not keen on that one. It has a 'can't be arsed to engage heart or mind' feel to it.
On a more positive note, to prove I'm not going the surly old man route, I do quite like the growing tendency of young people in the customer services game to dispense with 'ok' in favour of 'amazing'.
"What time do you close?" "5 o'clock" "How about 3.30 then?" "Amazing."
Comments
When I was an agent, in an attempt to get a better level of granularity, I would always phrase the voting question as "How likely would you be to vote for...", using a 1 to 10 scale. You can then use that information, with some degree of accuracy, to estimate the number of voters who will actually turn out to vote for you on the day.
Usually it is possible to turn that correct intuition into a practical policy. I support good Ukrainians and good Russians by wanting victory for the Ukrainians, peace and, if needed, a negotiated discussion of the borders backed by neutral mediation and fair referenda. Rational alternatives are available too.
In the Israel/Gaza/Palestine situation no-one can suggest even a glimmer of what non-unicorn policy would be if its aim is to 'support good people on all sides and oppose bad people on all sides'.
People who used to excuse his “cut her up and put her in the fridge” bile about Theresa May, will probably be faux outrageuexed about whatever Boris & Cummings have said. Just like those Celtic supporters with Israel & Palestine, you choose a side and stick to it
They find the idea of people from their side treating the other side as humans particularly offensive.
That's where your real peace lies.
I'm trying to recall who the hat-trick was against... it'll come to me.
* No, I'm not counting the Scottish Premiership with Rangers. My gran could've won the Scottish Premiership with Rangers at that time. Indeed, I'm not 100% sure she didn't - she was quite sprightly in her 80s.
To give a less flippant answer, if I was active on a forum with lots of Palestinians on it, then I may well have said "release the hostages". As I am on a forum where I assume everyone (at least active) wants the hostages released, I see no point in saying it, let alone demanding that other posters say it, before they are entitled to discuss the Israeli response.
Since it's Friday, off topic pics of a self-building friend's "in roof" solar panels on his house that I just ran across. I think I once wanted to post these, and could not find a pic. With added Hound of the Baskervilles.
If not of interest, please ignore.
Source:https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/blogs/entry/996-topping-out/
Which helps explain why there is very little appetite in Israel for any sort of two/three state solution until the other side shows any sort of sign they actually want it and have the means to ensure it works.
Polling 25-26 October.
The mean of the last 10 national opinion polls is:
Conservative 25.4%
Labour 46.4%
LibDems 10.5%
Mean Labour lead: 21%
That's why you read so much about Gammons and Zionists.
All it means is that attacking certain groups is unacceptable (punching down) but the groups the individual speaking dislikes are totally fair game because it's 'punching up'. It's either fine to 'punch' everyone, or no-one. Separating people into protected categories or fair game for hatred based on personal prejudice and then dressing it up as a moral stance is ridiculous.
The problem with violent language like "punching up" is that, outside the better class of cocktail parties, people can get somewhat literal.
A poster, the other day, was describing, with approval, a chant advocating violence against the police. To them, it was part of protest. A semi-figurative turn of speech. Not actually advocating violence, really.
@PME_Politics provides a demographic profile of this group. Compared to Tory defectors, they are much more likely to be female, more likely to be retired and live in the South, and less likely to have a mortgage or a degree
Well that's bemusing as I'm a 2019 Tory voter that is now a don't know.
Male, working, in the North, with both a mortgage and a degree.
So got every single one of those descriptors backwards.
It leads to Oxford educated, private schooled, wealthy black feminist academics shrilly hectoring white working class men on their inherent racism and abhorrent whjte privilege
And it’s even worse in America
That's all a bit misleading in the sense it depends who you're playing etc, but England's problem really isn't that they leak a lot of goals. It's more that they've tended to be a decent but not absolutely top tier team - so they usually deal pretty efficiently with the games they ought on paper to win, but often get found out in the later stages up against the very best.
What's with the OSB over the roof? Not seen that before, just timber, membrane and tiles in the builds I've seen including our own extension. Does it enable less of the 'strutural' timber due to the rigidity from the OSBs?
ETA: Solar panels require it, if putting in-roof, do they (the OSB) for support? Then you need to do the whole roof oftherwise the panels stand proud still?
Some years ago I was in Beirut at a meeting with Procter and Gamble for a shampoo ad. The P& G team were about six or seven. The models stylist and hairdresser were from the UK the P&G team from the US Germany and Ireland with the local team based in Saudi Arabia. The production was Lebanese and the agency people were again assorted. Probably about twenty in total. The meeting was held in Grey advertising's very modern office.
At one end of the room was a giant TV playing continuously. On it was footage of Israeli hellicopters hovering over buildings and then after a pause the building underneath was blasted to smithereens. We had no sound just english subtitles rolling continuously. I have no idea how many buildings were flattened during our four hour meeting but it was dozens at least. All interspersed with bodies ambulances and bewildered children looking lost. Nothing at all like the airbrushed stuff we see here on the BBC taken from miles away.
At lunch I was shellshocked but apart from my English team the others had seen it many times before. They were killing goldfish in a bowl. They all knew it and all they could do was shrug
This is not a "pogrom against world Jewry" this is a fight for rights and a humanity they and their children are being denied. Where you get this nonsense from I can't imagine? I'm Jewish but if anyone thinks this gives me anything in common with that one eyed country they're mistaken.
Much as the British Left covers the distance between people who Piers Corbyn thinks of as loonies, to the left hand side of the Lib Dems.
In my experience, that's the very best time to kick a man - he's simply so much less likely to be able to fight back. It worries me that people learn the wrong lessons from these expressions - some of them are downright misleading.
A spade and a shovel are completely different tools. As anyone who has actually dug a hole will tell you.
"Everything happens for a reason"
"You can do anything if you put your mind to it"
3 off the top of my head. Tip: If anyone wants to really bug me, use one of these.
The misinterpretation of that one saying ruined a humble friendly man’s life.
Re Tory MPs, I'm not sure they help if they're on for the "right" reasons. Hunt from Ipswich was saying British people feel uncomfortable in town centres because nobody around them is speaking English. You could see Sophy Ridge was really struggling to keep a straight face.
The humanity in humans.
Actually, it needs shouting, loudly and strongly. Why do people scream about Israel's responsibilities, but want silence over Hamas's?
Release the hostages to Israel. Stop the missile attacks. And yes, Israel needs to act as well. But actions cannot be one sided.
Punching anyone is not OK.
And mocking anyone is OK.
Where was the fun in that?
"Right, now listen to this and listen very carefully ..."
Which is all the time.
He's a joke character from Allo Allo ?
The council's built heritage manager has been out to have a look and is supportive - especially as the council has a firm policy of trying to retain commercial buildings as commercial.
But to proceed with the various applications the council is asking for proof there were previous signs in place. And the only one I can find showing the previous Union Bank of Scotland signs is old and fuzzy...
It turns out that being sacked by the Met can be quite profitable.
Although we got a taxi in Ipswich once and the 'brown' driver spoke better English than wot I done.
Really nice chap, too!
going to sit down on my settee with a cuppa wearing my Anarchist tee shirt and watch “One
Foot in the Grave” and “Keeping up Appearances” for the seventh time
(a) Canmore, and HES listed buildings records?
(b) Scran (maybe through local library)?
If I was talking to a Palestinian audience I would talk about what they could do. If I was talking to an Israeli audience I would talk about what they could do.
I am not talking to either, but a bunch of mostly Brits with an interest in politics and/or gambling. The little here I say here is mostly on the game theory side of neither side having good options, as it is that interests me, and some partisans on both sides assume it could be fixed if only the "other" side changed, which I do not believe to be the case. Peace when it comes will be through an unexpected, unpredictable path as the predictable ones all lead to perpetual conflict.
The word “grenade” - as in “hand grenade” - derives from the old French “pomme grenata”, because the original, ceramic grenades looked like pomegranates
And they did
https://talksport.com/football/1613377/liverpool-steven-gerrard-jordan-henderson-al-ettifaq-capacity/
Broadly speaking our tiniest glimmer involves South Africa, India and New Zealand winning all their matches (Except us vs India); us winning all ours and then some upsets by the other lower placed teams against Australia.
Betfair reckons this sequence followed by us winning the semis and final is 299-1.
All baa myself: Is this Britain's loneliest sheep?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-67237956
Stay. You sometimes say interesting things
On a more positive note, to prove I'm not going the surly old man route, I do quite like the growing tendency of young people in the customer services game to dispense with 'ok' in favour of 'amazing'.
"What time do you close?"
"5 o'clock"
"How about 3.30 then?"
"Amazing."