A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
Virulent Arab anti-semitism *is* a reality , whatever you may claim.
Even if one accepts the premise that original sin rests with the Jews, for migrating to the region, from the 1890's onwards, we are where we are.
European / Christian anti-Semitism is what, in part, led to the Holocaust - whilst it is still a problem I would argue we have managed to improve society somewhat. That you refuse to believe that Palestinians could do the same is, again, refusing to give them agency.
And the original sin does not "rest with the Jews" because "Jews" is not the same as "the state of Israel" (because not all Jewish people are Israeli or represented by the state of Israel), nor is it the same as "Zionist" (because not all Zionists are Jewish people, nor are all Jewish people Zionists).
You seem to be misusing the word agency.
You criticise others for assigning "total agency to the state of Israel" but that's exactly what you are doing by treating everything that happens as a function of the actions of the Israeli state.
I am using agency in the sense of political agency, the capacity or ability to make things happen.
I am not saying everything happens as a function of the actions of the Israeli state. Hamas has some, limited, agency. Most Palestinians, I would argue, do not. Most individual Israelis, I would suggest, have only slightly more than their Palestinian neighbours - but that slight allows them to steal Palestinian houses and land, and commit mob violence against Palestinian businesses and places of worship (but not to protest their governments actions against Palestinians). The state of Israel has a lot of agency, especially in the region, but the US has more, for example. The UK used to have a lot more, but in modern times has a lot less.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
"...h are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians."
No. It's perfectly possible to see that the attack had 'causes' (multiple); but also to say that that is essentially irrelevant. Hamas did what they did not because of the Palestinian 'cause'; but because they are anti-Semitic, homophobic and many other nasty things. Oh. and they also like power and money.
That is what you are incapable of seeing. Hamas is not dong this for the Palestinians; or for some sort of historic revenge. They are doing it because they are religious zealots who are about as far from what a leftist should see as 'good' as it is possible to get. But common enemies makes odd friends.
Your 'one state solution' is also one that will see genocide of the Jews in it; and you don't really address that. How can Jews live in a Hamas-led state? And if you don't think it'd be run by Hamas (or Iran, through proxies), how do you think you'll get them to give up power?
You attack Israel for what it is 'proposing' to do. You ignore what Hamas, Iran and others want to do to Israel.
And Jews.
Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es
I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews" by a) pointing out that European anti-Semitism has historically been much worse and we have manages to create a society that is much more tolerant of Jewish people, if still harbouring anti-Semites and b) that truth and reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens should occur. Do you think that statement somehow endorses the killing of all Jewish Israeli citizens? Or the creation of a Hamas-led state?
I have already expressed why I dismiss the idea that Hamas is only motivated by anti-Semitism - both above and elsewhere - and until you can explain why that is their only motivation outside of "because they are evil", I am not going to treat it like a grown up argument, because it isn't.
What single thing did I write here, or elsewhere, that suggests I believe Hamas is "good"? Explicable, given the context, yes. But good?
I do, above, denounce what Israel is proposing to do. I will also denounce any future violence aimed at civilians that may come from any state or non state actor that is not Israel. I can do both. But you cannot do the first.
And Israel is, categorically, not a proxy for all Jewish people.
"I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews ..." "
And your 'proposal' may happen; as it did in Europe. After the Jews have been nearly wiped out, or totally wiped out. For the Holocaust was the one big thing that made anti-Semitism in Europe unacceptable for most in Europe. Is that a risk you are really willing to take?
I did not say Hamas are only motivated by racism. They are also motivated by power, religion, ideology, politics and money. It's a heady mix. But racism is in there.
Again, you think my proposal for truth and reconciliation, for how to foster less anti-Semitism with Palestinian Arabs - is to allow them to commit a genocide against Jewish Israelis? Again, this is not a sincere response to anything I have said, and I will not treat it as such.
And you cannot conceive, cannot allow that some of their ideology, some of their political thought, is because of the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza by the state of Israel - and that the state of Israel is unjust in its treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
Those Britain Trump comparisons weren't far off in hindsight.
Just when you thought you'd heard it all....
Boris Johnson asked scientists if you could kill Covid by blowing hairdryer up nose
Boris Johnson asked scientists if people could kill Covid by blowing a hairdryer up their nose after he watched a YouTube video suggesting this.
The then-PM shared the clip on a WhatsApp group including Government health experts and senior No10 officials. In a written statement to the Covid Inquiry, Dominic Cummings accused Mr Johnson of spreading misinformation during the pandemic.
I mean, if I had access to important and knowledgeable scientists and there was a new disease going around, I bet I would ask some pretty dumb questions about it.
Trump started musing out loud in a public press conference, which was the problem. I’m prepared to cut Boris some slack on this, which I am not often accustomed to do.
Not even a cretin would begin to imagine blowing a hairdryer up your nose would do anything good.
Some of the best science comes from thinking a bit differently. Sometimes the consensus is wrong.
Take H. Pylori (or rather don't take it orally). Stomach ulcers were long thought to be down to stress. Then someone thought differently and wondered if a pathogen might be involved. There was a fair bit of skepticism, but it turned out to be right. Barry Marshal even infected himself to prove it.
Does that make Johnson's comments sesnsible? Not really, but thinking outside the box ought to be encouraged.
Quite.
And how can his actions be considered non-sensible? He didn't tell the public to rush to their hairdryers, he sent it to the 'experts' to check out. That seems exactly what he should have done.
As I've observed before, we in the United States have not accepted our losses from COVID, in people, and in the damage done to the economy. If something similar is true in the UK, then Boris Johnson's remarks may do him less damage than perhaps they should.
(The great 1918 flu epidemic drew astonishingly little coverage in the US, after it ended, even from professional historians.)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
Which would at least in part have been true. The treatment of Germany at Versailles was a big part of the reason Hitler's actions were tolerated for so long.
While true, its important to consider how Germany behaved as a victor in the East in 1917-1918. They were every bit as severe on a defeated opponent as the Western Allies. The Germans were also able to trade on the stab in the back myth - no foreign troops made it to German soil in 1918 (they would have though, the allies i complete ascendancy by then.
I wish the posters on both sides who are mind readers and can deduce that those with opposite views are in favour of genocide or don't care about the lives of Israelis/Palestinians/children or whoever/whatever would give it a rest.
It does nothing to strengthen your arguments, merely weakens them. And this applies to both sides. I regularly read a post from someone that is passionate and well written, might even agree with 80-90% of it and then the inevitable childish, counter productive, insulting and frankly boring sign off.
Please assume at least neutral intent from those you disagree with. The vast vast majority of the time on here it will be good intent. And this is definitely both sides doing the same thing. Continue passionately argue your cases but drop that last paragraph, please.
If this is aimed at my rather long post, the last paragraph is central to my point. I do not understand how one can hold the paradoxes in their head that they espouse, that I laid out, and also be acting with sincerity. If you can explain how you manage to, that would be fab.
I also don't know how to take many of the responses as particularly sincere given my positions over the last few weeks.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
"...h are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians."
No. It's perfectly possible to see that the attack had 'causes' (multiple); but also to say that that is essentially irrelevant. Hamas did what they did not because of the Palestinian 'cause'; but because they are anti-Semitic, homophobic and many other nasty things. Oh. and they also like power and money.
That is what you are incapable of seeing. Hamas is not dong this for the Palestinians; or for some sort of historic revenge. They are doing it because they are religious zealots who are about as far from what a leftist should see as 'good' as it is possible to get. But common enemies makes odd friends.
Your 'one state solution' is also one that will see genocide of the Jews in it; and you don't really address that. How can Jews live in a Hamas-led state? And if you don't think it'd be run by Hamas (or Iran, through proxies), how do you think you'll get them to give up power?
You attack Israel for what it is 'proposing' to do. You ignore what Hamas, Iran and others want to do to Israel.
And Jews.
Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es
I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews" by a) pointing out that European anti-Semitism has historically been much worse and we have manages to create a society that is much more tolerant of Jewish people, if still harbouring anti-Semites and b) that truth and reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens should occur. Do you think that statement somehow endorses the killing of all Jewish Israeli citizens? Or the creation of a Hamas-led state?
I have already expressed why I dismiss the idea that Hamas is only motivated by anti-Semitism - both above and elsewhere - and until you can explain why that is their only motivation outside of "because they are evil", I am not going to treat it like a grown up argument, because it isn't.
What single thing did I write here, or elsewhere, that suggests I believe Hamas is "good"? Explicable, given the context, yes. But good?
I do, above, denounce what Israel is proposing to do. I will also denounce any future violence aimed at civilians that may come from any state or non state actor that is not Israel. I can do both. But you cannot do the first.
And Israel is, categorically, not a proxy for all Jewish people.
"I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews ..." "
And your 'proposal' may happen; as it did in Europe. After the Jews have been nearly wiped out, or totally wiped out. For the Holocaust was the one big thing that made anti-Semitism in Europe unacceptable for most in Europe. Is that a risk you are really willing to take?
I did not say Hamas are only motivated by racism. They are also motivated by power, religion, ideology, politics and money. It's a heady mix. But racism is in there.
Again, you think my proposal for truth and reconciliation, for how to foster less anti-Semitism with Palestinian Arabs - is to allow them to commit a genocide against Jewish Israelis? Again, this is not a sincere response to anything I have said, and I will not treat it as such.
And you cannot conceive, cannot allow that some of their ideology, some of their political thought, is because of the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza by the state of Israel - and that the state of Israel is unjust in its treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
How ill you make 'truth and reconciliation' work? What happens if/when it fails? (My guess is that it would, very quickly). How do you protect the Jews?
You judge me as insincere; fair enough, You are wrong, though.
I wish the posters on both sides who are mind readers and can deduce that those with opposite views are in favour of genocide or don't care about the lives of Israelis/Palestinians/children or whoever/whatever would give it a rest.
It does nothing to strengthen your arguments, merely weakens them. And this applies to both sides. I regularly read a post from someone that is passionate and well written, might even agree with 80-90% of it and then the inevitable childish, counter productive, insulting and frankly boring sign off.
Please assume at least neutral intent from those you disagree with. The vast vast majority of the time on here it will be good intent. And this is definitely both sides doing the same thing. Continue passionately argue your cases but drop that last paragraph, please.
If this is aimed at my rather long post, the last paragraph is central to my point. I do not understand how one can hold the paradoxes in their head that they espouse, that I laid out, and also be acting with sincerity. If you can explain how you manage to, that would be fab.
I also don't know how to take many of the responses as particularly sincere given my positions over the last few weeks.
It is aimed at everyone making such assertions about others.
Look at it this way, just as you cant understand the paradoxes in their head, they can't understand the paradoxes in your head. That is because we are human, complex and not entirely logically consistent in our beliefs. Not because we dont care or are feeling a bit genocidal this afternoon.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
Versailles was just the same as the Germans had imposed on France in 1870 and Russia in in WWI. In fact less stringent. It was just jolly unfair that it was done back to Germany.
Quite a lot of people argued that my not giving ethnic self determination to all the German populations of the countries of Europe was Not Nice and The Cause Of The Next War.
But this wasn't really about Versailles as such - it was about how the map of Europe had ended up after the war and the breaking of the Austro-Hungarian empire (among other things). Instead of giving all the German ethnic populations to Germany, they were part of various countries.
Certainly Hitler used it as his cause for war - he wasn't going to war with the Jews. Officially that is.
And the German populations of the various countries *were* being treated as second class citizens - though not 1% of how badly Germany then treated conquered populations.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
Which would at least in part have been true. The treatment of Germany at Versailles was a big part of the reason Hitler's actions were tolerated for so long.
While true, its important to consider how Germany behaved as a victor in the East in 1917-1918. They were every bit as severe on a defeated opponent as the Western Allies. The Germans were also able to trade on the stab in the back myth - no foreign troops made it to German soil in 1918 (they would have though, the allies i complete ascendancy by then.
Oh, I agree completely. I was just suggesting that the sentiment William alluded to wasn't actually that outlandish in the 1930s.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
"...h are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians."
No. It's perfectly possible to see that the attack had 'causes' (multiple); but also to say that that is essentially irrelevant. Hamas did what they did not because of the Palestinian 'cause'; but because they are anti-Semitic, homophobic and many other nasty things. Oh. and they also like power and money.
That is what you are incapable of seeing. Hamas is not dong this for the Palestinians; or for some sort of historic revenge. They are doing it because they are religious zealots who are about as far from what a leftist should see as 'good' as it is possible to get. But common enemies makes odd friends.
Your 'one state solution' is also one that will see genocide of the Jews in it; and you don't really address that. How can Jews live in a Hamas-led state? And if you don't think it'd be run by Hamas (or Iran, through proxies), how do you think you'll get them to give up power?
You attack Israel for what it is 'proposing' to do. You ignore what Hamas, Iran and others want to do to Israel.
And Jews.
Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es
I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews" by a) pointing out that European anti-Semitism has historically been much worse and we have manages to create a society that is much more tolerant of Jewish people, if still harbouring anti-Semites and b) that truth and reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens should occur. Do you think that statement somehow endorses the killing of all Jewish Israeli citizens? Or the creation of a Hamas-led state?
I have already expressed why I dismiss the idea that Hamas is only motivated by anti-Semitism - both above and elsewhere - and until you can explain why that is their only motivation outside of "because they are evil", I am not going to treat it like a grown up argument, because it isn't.
What single thing did I write here, or elsewhere, that suggests I believe Hamas is "good"? Explicable, given the context, yes. But good?
I do, above, denounce what Israel is proposing to do. I will also denounce any future violence aimed at civilians that may come from any state or non state actor that is not Israel. I can do both. But you cannot do the first.
And Israel is, categorically, not a proxy for all Jewish people.
"I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews ..." "
And your 'proposal' may happen; as it did in Europe. After the Jews have been nearly wiped out, or totally wiped out. For the Holocaust was the one big thing that made anti-Semitism in Europe unacceptable for most in Europe. Is that a risk you are really willing to take?
I did not say Hamas are only motivated by racism. They are also motivated by power, religion, ideology, politics and money. It's a heady mix. But racism is in there.
Again, you think my proposal for truth and reconciliation, for how to foster less anti-Semitism with Palestinian Arabs - is to allow them to commit a genocide against Jewish Israelis? Again, this is not a sincere response to anything I have said, and I will not treat it as such.
And you cannot conceive, cannot allow that some of their ideology, some of their political thought, is because of the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza by the state of Israel - and that the state of Israel is unjust in its treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
How ill you make 'truth and reconciliation' work? What happens if/when it fails? (My guess is that it would, very quickly). How do you protect the Jews?
You judge me as insincere; fair enough, You are wrong, though.
See, that feels like a sincere question. And my answer, although probably unsatisfying, is "with great difficulty".
I think it would need international oversight, I think it would need international cooperation and I think it would need a great deal of international bureaucracy. It would also require significant political will to not allow it to fail. Something akin to the Nuremburg trials and the occupation of East and West Germany, with troops from a coalition of countries assuring the safety of Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians. Hell, akin to the Balfour Declaration and the partitioning of land, except with this time understanding that you cannot impose a solution only one side signed up to. It would mean involving Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and, potentially, even Iranian politicians. These are doable things, it would just take work - and a degree of work that certain states (namely Israel and the US) have hitherto refused to do. It would lead to the trials of Israeli politicians, I'm sure, as well as Hamas terrorists. That is what is required.
Yes, this is near utopian (although I don't think it is impossible). But compared to the current position of "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to" I think it is significantly preferable.
Those Britain Trump comparisons weren't far off in hindsight.
Just when you thought you'd heard it all....
Boris Johnson asked scientists if you could kill Covid by blowing hairdryer up nose
Boris Johnson asked scientists if people could kill Covid by blowing a hairdryer up their nose after he watched a YouTube video suggesting this.
The then-PM shared the clip on a WhatsApp group including Government health experts and senior No10 officials. In a written statement to the Covid Inquiry, Dominic Cummings accused Mr Johnson of spreading misinformation during the pandemic.
I mean, if I had access to important and knowledgeable scientists and there was a new disease going around, I bet I would ask some pretty dumb questions about it.
Trump started musing out loud in a public press conference, which was the problem. I’m prepared to cut Boris some slack on this, which I am not often accustomed to do.
Not even a cretin would begin to imagine blowing a hairdryer up your nose would do anything good.
Some of the best science comes from thinking a bit differently. Sometimes the consensus is wrong.
Take H. Pylori (or rather don't take it orally). Stomach ulcers were long thought to be down to stress. Then someone thought differently and wondered if a pathogen might be involved. There was a fair bit of skepticism, but it turned out to be right. Barry Marshal even infected himself to prove it.
Does that make Johnson's comments sesnsible? Not really, but thinking outside the box ought to be encouraged.
Quite.
And how can his actions be considered non-sensible? He didn't tell the public to rush to their hairdryers, he sent it to the 'experts' to check out. That seems exactly what he should have done.
No he shouldn't. They have better things to do than look at every crackpot idea from the internet. By your logic (Boris being a non expert) we should all have been sending them our pet theories and by god there were enough of them on the internet and they could have wasted their entire time investigating all of them rather using you know, science.
Yes we should be encouraged to think outside the box. It can produce great results. It is however not recommended that the likes of Boris and Trump bombard their scientists (who were under severe pressure) with videos posted by loons on the internet.
Next suggestions: Email NASA with youtube videos on how to land on the sun. Maybe Trump did that when president and I'm guessing you think that is a good idea?
Those Britain Trump comparisons weren't far off in hindsight.
Just when you thought you'd heard it all....
Boris Johnson asked scientists if you could kill Covid by blowing hairdryer up nose
Boris Johnson asked scientists if people could kill Covid by blowing a hairdryer up their nose after he watched a YouTube video suggesting this.
The then-PM shared the clip on a WhatsApp group including Government health experts and senior No10 officials. In a written statement to the Covid Inquiry, Dominic Cummings accused Mr Johnson of spreading misinformation during the pandemic.
I mean, if I had access to important and knowledgeable scientists and there was a new disease going around, I bet I would ask some pretty dumb questions about it.
Trump started musing out loud in a public press conference, which was the problem. I’m prepared to cut Boris some slack on this, which I am not often accustomed to do.
Not even a cretin would begin to imagine blowing a hairdryer up your nose would do anything good.
Some of the best science comes from thinking a bit differently. Sometimes the consensus is wrong.
Take H. Pylori (or rather don't take it orally). Stomach ulcers were long thought to be down to stress. Then someone thought differently and wondered if a pathogen might be involved. There was a fair bit of skepticism, but it turned out to be right. Barry Marshal even infected himself to prove it.
Does that make Johnson's comments sesnsible? Not really, but thinking outside the box ought to be encouraged.
Might moving our brains out from the skull help them grow bigger and more powerful? Or is that taking thinking outside the box a bit too far?
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
"...h are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians."
No. It's perfectly possible to see that the attack had 'causes' (multiple); but also to say that that is essentially irrelevant. Hamas did what they did not because of the Palestinian 'cause'; but because they are anti-Semitic, homophobic and many other nasty things. Oh. and they also like power and money.
That is what you are incapable of seeing. Hamas is not dong this for the Palestinians; or for some sort of historic revenge. They are doing it because they are religious zealots who are about as far from what a leftist should see as 'good' as it is possible to get. But common enemies makes odd friends.
Your 'one state solution' is also one that will see genocide of the Jews in it; and you don't really address that. How can Jews live in a Hamas-led state? And if you don't think it'd be run by Hamas (or Iran, through proxies), how do you think you'll get them to give up power?
You attack Israel for what it is 'proposing' to do. You ignore what Hamas, Iran and others want to do to Israel.
And Jews.
Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es
I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews" by a) pointing out that European anti-Semitism has historically been much worse and we have manages to create a society that is much more tolerant of Jewish people, if still harbouring anti-Semites and b) that truth and reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens should occur. Do you think that statement somehow endorses the killing of all Jewish Israeli citizens? Or the creation of a Hamas-led state?
I have already expressed why I dismiss the idea that Hamas is only motivated by anti-Semitism - both above and elsewhere - and until you can explain why that is their only motivation outside of "because they are evil", I am not going to treat it like a grown up argument, because it isn't.
What single thing did I write here, or elsewhere, that suggests I believe Hamas is "good"? Explicable, given the context, yes. But good?
I do, above, denounce what Israel is proposing to do. I will also denounce any future violence aimed at civilians that may come from any state or non state actor that is not Israel. I can do both. But you cannot do the first.
And Israel is, categorically, not a proxy for all Jewish people.
"I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews ..." "
And your 'proposal' may happen; as it did in Europe. After the Jews have been nearly wiped out, or totally wiped out. For the Holocaust was the one big thing that made anti-Semitism in Europe unacceptable for most in Europe. Is that a risk you are really willing to take?
I did not say Hamas are only motivated by racism. They are also motivated by power, religion, ideology, politics and money. It's a heady mix. But racism is in there.
Again, you think my proposal for truth and reconciliation, for how to foster less anti-Semitism with Palestinian Arabs - is to allow them to commit a genocide against Jewish Israelis? Again, this is not a sincere response to anything I have said, and I will not treat it as such.
And you cannot conceive, cannot allow that some of their ideology, some of their political thought, is because of the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza by the state of Israel - and that the state of Israel is unjust in its treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
How ill you make 'truth and reconciliation' work? What happens if/when it fails? (My guess is that it would, very quickly). How do you protect the Jews?
You judge me as insincere; fair enough, You are wrong, though.
See, that feels like a sincere question. And my answer, although probably unsatisfying, is "with great difficulty".
I think it would need international oversight, I think it would need international cooperation and I think it would need a great deal of international bureaucracy. It would also require significant political will to not allow it to fail. Something akin to the Nuremburg trials and the occupation of East and West Germany, with troops from a coalition of countries assuring the safety of Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians. Hell, akin to the Balfour Declaration and the partitioning of land, except with this time understanding that you cannot impose a solution only one side signed up to. It would mean involving Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and, potentially, even Iranian politicians. These are doable things, it would just take work - and a degree of work that certain states (namely Israel and the US) have hitherto refused to do. It would lead to the trials of Israeli politicians, I'm sure, as well as Hamas terrorists. That is what is required.
Yes, this is near utopian (although I don't think it is impossible). But compared to the current position of "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to" I think it is significantly preferable.
Do you sincerely think that the current position is "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to"?
From many prevous threads: In the 1930s, if you wished Soviet citizens well, especially women and children, you would have wanted Stalin's government destroyed.
In 1941, if you wished the German people well, especially women and children, you would have wanted the Nazi government destroyed.
In 1960, if you wished the Chinese people well, especially women and children, you would have wanted Mao's government destroyed.
In 1977, if you wished the Cambodian people well, especially women and children, you would have wanted the Khmer Rouge destroyed - as they were by the Vietnamese army in 1979.
In 2023, if you wish Gazans well, especially women and children, you should . . .
(Some keep harping on the argument that Netenyahu helped Hamas at some point. I don't know the details, so won't say more than this: If that is true, at the very least the Hamas leadership was stupid in accepting his help, rather than making peace with the PLO.
Assuming they care about the well being of Gazans, for which the evidence is slight.)
Those Britain Trump comparisons weren't far off in hindsight.
Just when you thought you'd heard it all....
Boris Johnson asked scientists if you could kill Covid by blowing hairdryer up nose
Boris Johnson asked scientists if people could kill Covid by blowing a hairdryer up their nose after he watched a YouTube video suggesting this.
The then-PM shared the clip on a WhatsApp group including Government health experts and senior No10 officials. In a written statement to the Covid Inquiry, Dominic Cummings accused Mr Johnson of spreading misinformation during the pandemic.
I mean, if I had access to important and knowledgeable scientists and there was a new disease going around, I bet I would ask some pretty dumb questions about it.
Trump started musing out loud in a public press conference, which was the problem. I’m prepared to cut Boris some slack on this, which I am not often accustomed to do.
Not even a cretin would begin to imagine blowing a hairdryer up your nose would do anything good.
Some of the best science comes from thinking a bit differently. Sometimes the consensus is wrong.
Take H. Pylori (or rather don't take it orally). Stomach ulcers were long thought to be down to stress. Then someone thought differently and wondered if a pathogen might be involved. There was a fair bit of skepticism, but it turned out to be right. Barry Marshal even infected himself to prove it.
Does that make Johnson's comments sesnsible? Not really, but thinking outside the box ought to be encouraged.
Might moving our brains out from the skull help them grow bigger and more powerful? Or is that taking thinking outside the box a bit too far?
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
"...h are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians."
No. It's perfectly possible to see that the attack had 'causes' (multiple); but also to say that that is essentially irrelevant. Hamas did what they did not because of the Palestinian 'cause'; but because they are anti-Semitic, homophobic and many other nasty things. Oh. and they also like power and money.
That is what you are incapable of seeing. Hamas is not dong this for the Palestinians; or for some sort of historic revenge. They are doing it because they are religious zealots who are about as far from what a leftist should see as 'good' as it is possible to get. But common enemies makes odd friends.
Your 'one state solution' is also one that will see genocide of the Jews in it; and you don't really address that. How can Jews live in a Hamas-led state? And if you don't think it'd be run by Hamas (or Iran, through proxies), how do you think you'll get them to give up power?
You attack Israel for what it is 'proposing' to do. You ignore what Hamas, Iran and others want to do to Israel.
And Jews.
Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es
I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews" by a) pointing out that European anti-Semitism has historically been much worse and we have manages to create a society that is much more tolerant of Jewish people, if still harbouring anti-Semites and b) that truth and reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens should occur. Do you think that statement somehow endorses the killing of all Jewish Israeli citizens? Or the creation of a Hamas-led state?
I have already expressed why I dismiss the idea that Hamas is only motivated by anti-Semitism - both above and elsewhere - and until you can explain why that is their only motivation outside of "because they are evil", I am not going to treat it like a grown up argument, because it isn't.
What single thing did I write here, or elsewhere, that suggests I believe Hamas is "good"? Explicable, given the context, yes. But good?
I do, above, denounce what Israel is proposing to do. I will also denounce any future violence aimed at civilians that may come from any state or non state actor that is not Israel. I can do both. But you cannot do the first.
And Israel is, categorically, not a proxy for all Jewish people.
"I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews ..." "
And your 'proposal' may happen; as it did in Europe. After the Jews have been nearly wiped out, or totally wiped out. For the Holocaust was the one big thing that made anti-Semitism in Europe unacceptable for most in Europe. Is that a risk you are really willing to take?
I did not say Hamas are only motivated by racism. They are also motivated by power, religion, ideology, politics and money. It's a heady mix. But racism is in there.
Again, you think my proposal for truth and reconciliation, for how to foster less anti-Semitism with Palestinian Arabs - is to allow them to commit a genocide against Jewish Israelis? Again, this is not a sincere response to anything I have said, and I will not treat it as such.
And you cannot conceive, cannot allow that some of their ideology, some of their political thought, is because of the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza by the state of Israel - and that the state of Israel is unjust in its treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
How ill you make 'truth and reconciliation' work? What happens if/when it fails? (My guess is that it would, very quickly). How do you protect the Jews?
You judge me as insincere; fair enough, You are wrong, though.
See, that feels like a sincere question. And my answer, although probably unsatisfying, is "with great difficulty".
I think it would need international oversight, I think it would need international cooperation and I think it would need a great deal of international bureaucracy. It would also require significant political will to not allow it to fail. Something akin to the Nuremburg trials and the occupation of East and West Germany, with troops from a coalition of countries assuring the safety of Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians. Hell, akin to the Balfour Declaration and the partitioning of land, except with this time understanding that you cannot impose a solution only one side signed up to. It would mean involving Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and, potentially, even Iranian politicians. These are doable things, it would just take work - and a degree of work that certain states (namely Israel and the US) have hitherto refused to do. It would lead to the trials of Israeli politicians, I'm sure, as well as Hamas terrorists. That is what is required.
Yes, this is near utopian (although I don't think it is impossible). But compared to the current position of "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to" I think it is significantly preferable.
Do you sincerely think that the current position is "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to"?
Isn't it more "let Israel do whatever it wants to do"? And anyone who criticises it in any way is anti-semitic?
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
Virulent Arab anti-semitism *is* a reality , whatever you may claim.
Even if one accepts the premise that original sin rests with the Jews, for migrating to the region, from the 1890's onwards, we are where we are.
Just heard that Stephen Pollard is going to wear the biggst Mogan David he can find to show that he's not afraid of anti-semites.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
It's probably because none of it is news to PB, other than the micro-detail.
And I don't think particularly newsworthy to the general population either. Israel-Palestine is dominating the news. Most people have moved on from Covid, in the sense they know there were lots of ballsups and Boris wasn't up to the job, and it's not a surprise Cummings was saying things straight out of the thick of it.
Those Britain Trump comparisons weren't far off in hindsight.
Just when you thought you'd heard it all....
Boris Johnson asked scientists if you could kill Covid by blowing hairdryer up nose
Boris Johnson asked scientists if people could kill Covid by blowing a hairdryer up their nose after he watched a YouTube video suggesting this.
The then-PM shared the clip on a WhatsApp group including Government health experts and senior No10 officials. In a written statement to the Covid Inquiry, Dominic Cummings accused Mr Johnson of spreading misinformation during the pandemic.
I mean, if I had access to important and knowledgeable scientists and there was a new disease going around, I bet I would ask some pretty dumb questions about it.
Trump started musing out loud in a public press conference, which was the problem. I’m prepared to cut Boris some slack on this, which I am not often accustomed to do.
Not even a cretin would begin to imagine blowing a hairdryer up your nose would do anything good.
Some of the best science comes from thinking a bit differently. Sometimes the consensus is wrong.
Take H. Pylori (or rather don't take it orally). Stomach ulcers were long thought to be down to stress. Then someone thought differently and wondered if a pathogen might be involved. There was a fair bit of skepticism, but it turned out to be right. Barry Marshal even infected himself to prove it.
Does that make Johnson's comments sesnsible? Not really, but thinking outside the box ought to be encouraged.
Might moving our brains out from the skull help them grow bigger and more powerful? Or is that taking thinking outside the box a bit too far?
"But what I do have are a very particular set of Skulls; Skulls I have acquired over a very long career; Skulls that make me a nightmare for people like you!"
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
Which would at least in part have been true. The treatment of Germany at Versailles was a big part of the reason Hitler's actions were tolerated for so long.
While true, its important to consider how Germany behaved as a victor in the East in 1917-1918. They were every bit as severe on a defeated opponent as the Western Allies. The Germans were also able to trade on the stab in the back myth - no foreign troops made it to German soil in 1918 (they would have though, the allies i complete ascendancy by then.
In Our Time's most recent episode is on John Maynard Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", his polemic against Versailles. Interesting stuff. It's at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001qtpf
One can, of course, critique the Treaty of Versailles without in any way condoning the Nazis.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
"...h are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians."
No. It's perfectly possible to see that the attack had 'causes' (multiple); but also to say that that is essentially irrelevant. Hamas did what they did not because of the Palestinian 'cause'; but because they are anti-Semitic, homophobic and many other nasty things. Oh. and they also like power and money.
That is what you are incapable of seeing. Hamas is not dong this for the Palestinians; or for some sort of historic revenge. They are doing it because they are religious zealots who are about as far from what a leftist should see as 'good' as it is possible to get. But common enemies makes odd friends.
Your 'one state solution' is also one that will see genocide of the Jews in it; and you don't really address that. How can Jews live in a Hamas-led state? And if you don't think it'd be run by Hamas (or Iran, through proxies), how do you think you'll get them to give up power?
You attack Israel for what it is 'proposing' to do. You ignore what Hamas, Iran and others want to do to Israel.
And Jews.
Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es
I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews" by a) pointing out that European anti-Semitism has historically been much worse and we have manages to create a society that is much more tolerant of Jewish people, if still harbouring anti-Semites and b) that truth and reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens should occur. Do you think that statement somehow endorses the killing of all Jewish Israeli citizens? Or the creation of a Hamas-led state?
I have already expressed why I dismiss the idea that Hamas is only motivated by anti-Semitism - both above and elsewhere - and until you can explain why that is their only motivation outside of "because they are evil", I am not going to treat it like a grown up argument, because it isn't.
What single thing did I write here, or elsewhere, that suggests I believe Hamas is "good"? Explicable, given the context, yes. But good?
I do, above, denounce what Israel is proposing to do. I will also denounce any future violence aimed at civilians that may come from any state or non state actor that is not Israel. I can do both. But you cannot do the first.
And Israel is, categorically, not a proxy for all Jewish people.
"I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews ..." "
And your 'proposal' may happen; as it did in Europe. After the Jews have been nearly wiped out, or totally wiped out. For the Holocaust was the one big thing that made anti-Semitism in Europe unacceptable for most in Europe. Is that a risk you are really willing to take?
I did not say Hamas are only motivated by racism. They are also motivated by power, religion, ideology, politics and money. It's a heady mix. But racism is in there.
Again, you think my proposal for truth and reconciliation, for how to foster less anti-Semitism with Palestinian Arabs - is to allow them to commit a genocide against Jewish Israelis? Again, this is not a sincere response to anything I have said, and I will not treat it as such.
And you cannot conceive, cannot allow that some of their ideology, some of their political thought, is because of the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza by the state of Israel - and that the state of Israel is unjust in its treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
How ill you make 'truth and reconciliation' work? What happens if/when it fails? (My guess is that it would, very quickly). How do you protect the Jews?
You judge me as insincere; fair enough, You are wrong, though.
See, that feels like a sincere question. And my answer, although probably unsatisfying, is "with great difficulty".
I think it would need international oversight, I think it would need international cooperation and I think it would need a great deal of international bureaucracy. It would also require significant political will to not allow it to fail. Something akin to the Nuremburg trials and the occupation of East and West Germany, with troops from a coalition of countries assuring the safety of Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians. Hell, akin to the Balfour Declaration and the partitioning of land, except with this time understanding that you cannot impose a solution only one side signed up to. It would mean involving Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and, potentially, even Iranian politicians. These are doable things, it would just take work - and a degree of work that certain states (namely Israel and the US) have hitherto refused to do. It would lead to the trials of Israeli politicians, I'm sure, as well as Hamas terrorists. That is what is required.
Yes, this is near utopian (although I don't think it is impossible). But compared to the current position of "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to" I think it is significantly preferable.
Do you sincerely think that the current position is "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to"?
In practice, yes. Specifically the current political position of all the significant countries (the US, most EU nations, other major nations involved in the UN) is to "let Israel do what it wants". And I sincerely believe that the current government of Israel, and basically Israeli government policy since the failure of the Oslo accords, is to let the Palestinians die off quietly, and use any time they react violently to that as an excuse for mass violence.
We have seen it in this conflict - the description of Palestinians as "human animals", that "if they want hell, we will make it hell", the thousands of civilians killed and tens of thousands displaced in indiscriminate bombings of Gazan land that has no proven link to Hamas outside of the fact it is in Gaza. Again, Israeli ministers have said they plan to make Gaza a place where "no human can exist" - something that works with their actions. If they were talking tough and acting more humanely, I'd be willing to put it down to politics - but they are following words of genocide with actions of genocide; and the talking point from Biden is no talk of ceasefire, Israel needs to be allowed to do this.
Storm Ciaran was looking like a predominantly channel and Northern France affair but the high resolution Arpège and Arôme models (both French, but not biased I promise) have developed a sting jet - which satellite images already show forming in Biscay - and are slamming Cornwall and later Kent with extremely strong winds. 80-90mph gusts, possibly higher (the picture is sustained winds).
These sorts of gusts are much more damaging when trees still have their foliage than later in the year when they’re bare. Saturated ground also makes tree falls more likely.
A very coastal affair though. The midlands in particular will hardly see a breeze. “Eye of the storm”. Worst hit likely to be the Channel Islands. St Helier also expecting the highest storm tide: 1.5m.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
It's probably because none of it is news to PB, other than the micro-detail.
Also if you go back to late February / early March 2020 you will see how far ahead of the game the posters on this site were about what was likely to happen....
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
What are PB Tories? How many posters express detailed support for this government, principled adherence to its underlying ethos and philosophy and what it is doing, delight that this parliament and cabinet is doing so well, and a conviction that a better one is not really thinkable or available, and that a right thinking public should send them back with a large majority at the next election?
I think they are few in number. This One Nation Burkean Tory is voting Labour as the nearest thing available to my principles.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
A 'one state solution' completely ignores why Israel was set up the way it was and its founding principle, not Muslim antisemitism, but that centuries, nigh millennia, as persecuted minorities in all kinds of societies, culminating in the Holocaust, led many Jews to believe they needed their own state. One they could guarantee wouldn't turn on them one day. With even the majority of those in the diaspora supporting its existence as a lifeboat should the need arise one day. You just need a grain of empathy to see why.
For example, Britain is in theory one of the better places to be an ethnic or religious minority - but Jewish schools and synagogues require security. Scenes on US campuses have been horrifying. Jewish communities in many Arab, North African states and Iran have all but disappeared- with most of those countries either run by thuggish dictators or theocratic zealots who have turned on Jews the moment they could. Venezuela has seen mass emigration by Jews because of its far left government's antisemitism. In fact, pretty much anywhere with a horrid regime, Jews will find themselves on the wrong end of it.
It's simple self-preservation for most to want a homeland where Jews are in the majority and thus keeping them safe. One born of bitter experience, that even in countries where you are perfectly assimilated could turn on you one day. And of course most countries are not liberal democracies that uphold human rights. You only have to look at how Jews are treated across the Middle East to see that the creation of a one state would be a gamble many Israelis simply could not take.
It's just not a serious suggestion when you get remotely below the surface of what it would mean and the dangers involved.
The best hope for peace may well be what might be called a three state one - Gaza prospers as a microstate tourist destination - independent of, but linked to Egypt. Settlers are given a choice between leaving the WB or living under Palestinian rule in the West Bank, with Jerusalem as a free city with shared sovereignty. But that would rely on a brave Israeli government and Palestinian leaders getting their act together instead of wallowing in the thuggish extremism that Israel provides a convenient excuse for and Iran funds and stirs.
From many prevous threads: In the 1930s, if you wished Soviet citizens well, especially women and children, you would have wanted Stalin's government destroyed.
In 1941, if you wished the German people well, especially women and children, you would have wanted the Nazi government destroyed.
In 1960, if you wished the Chinese people well, especially women and children, you would have wanted Mao's government destroyed.
In 1977, if you wished the Cambodian people well, especially women and children, you would have wanted the Khmer Rouge destroyed - as they were by the Vietnamese army in 1979.
In 2023, if you wish Gazans well, especially women and children, you should . . .
(Some keep harping on the argument that Netenyahu helped Hamas at some point. I don't know the details, so won't say more than this: If that is true, at the very least the Hamas leadership was stupid in accepting his help, rather than making peace with the PLO.
Assuming they care about the well being of Gazans, for which the evidence is slight.)
If you wished the Israeli people well then you would want Netenyahu and his extremists destroyed (politically rather than physically of course)
Those Britain Trump comparisons weren't far off in hindsight.
Just when you thought you'd heard it all....
Boris Johnson asked scientists if you could kill Covid by blowing hairdryer up nose
Boris Johnson asked scientists if people could kill Covid by blowing a hairdryer up their nose after he watched a YouTube video suggesting this.
The then-PM shared the clip on a WhatsApp group including Government health experts and senior No10 officials. In a written statement to the Covid Inquiry, Dominic Cummings accused Mr Johnson of spreading misinformation during the pandemic.
I mean, if I had access to important and knowledgeable scientists and there was a new disease going around, I bet I would ask some pretty dumb questions about it.
Trump started musing out loud in a public press conference, which was the problem. I’m prepared to cut Boris some slack on this, which I am not often accustomed to do.
Not even a cretin would begin to imagine blowing a hairdryer up your nose would do anything good.
Some of the best science comes from thinking a bit differently. Sometimes the consensus is wrong.
Take H. Pylori (or rather don't take it orally). Stomach ulcers were long thought to be down to stress. Then someone thought differently and wondered if a pathogen might be involved. There was a fair bit of skepticism, but it turned out to be right. Barry Marshal even infected himself to prove it.
Does that make Johnson's comments sesnsible? Not really, but thinking outside the box ought to be encouraged.
Quite.
And how can his actions be considered non-sensible? He didn't tell the public to rush to their hairdryers, he sent it to the 'experts' to check out. That seems exactly what he should have done.
No he shouldn't. They have better things to do than look at every crackpot idea from the internet. By your logic (Boris being a non expert) we should all have been sending them our pet theories and by god there were enough of them on the internet and they could have wasted their entire time investigating all of them rather using you know, science.
Yes we should be encouraged to think outside the box. It can produce great results. It is however not recommended that the likes of Boris and Trump bombard their scientists (who were under severe pressure) with videos posted by loons on the internet.
Next suggestions: Email NASA with youtube videos on how to land on the sun. Maybe Trump did that when president and I'm guessing you think that is a good idea?
This post is infantile rubbish. He didn't ask them to look at 'every crackpot idea from the internet', he saw something that seemed plausible, and asked the people he needed to ask until he got a (presumably) satisfactory response. We haven't seen the video, and we don't know how cogently argued, or grounded in science the points made in it were. I have already mentioned that Covid incubates in the nasal cavity for 24 hours before it spreads to the rest of the body, and that other treatments for Covid that have made it into production have focused on this crucial period. The people that he asked to provide him with answers were Government advisors - that was their literal job. The idea that he should have not sought their advice on this because of some spurious notion of not overtaxing them is absurd.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
"Germany is considering abandoning its flagship €100 billion future combat jet project with France and joining a rival programme with Britain instead, The Times has been told.
As an overture to a potential deal, the German chancellor is also understood to be in talks over lifting Berlin’s veto on a delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, which the UK views as an important strategic priority.
A pact along these lines would be a significant coup for London and reflect a steadily worsening rift between France and Germany, which are at odds over issues from energy and air defence to diplomatic protocol."
Macron will be le grumpy again if this transpires.
Storm Ciaran was looking like a predominantly channel and Northern France affair but the high resolution Arpège and Arôme models (both French, but not biased I promise) have developed a sting jet - which satellite images already show forming in Biscay - and are slamming Cornwall and later Kent with extremely strong winds. 80-90mph.
These sorts of gusts are much more damaging when trees still have their foliage than later in the year when they’re bare. Saturated ground also makes tree falls more likely.
A very coastal affair though. The midlands in particular will hardly see a breeze. “Eye of the storm”. Worst hit likely to be the Channel Islands. St Helier also expecting the highest storm tide: 1.5m.
Yes, just been looking at that again. Latest readings also suggest a slightly lower pressure than forecast, which may indicate a slightly more northerly path. Even 20 miles makes quite a big difference to the outcome.
Red warning for Kent and possibly Sussex likely?
Cornwall probably has a higher threshold for red warnings that given strong winds are a more common occurrence.
Still showing 90kt gusts for the Channel Islands and northern France, which really is quite extreme.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
Virulent Arab anti-semitism *is* a reality , whatever you may claim.
Even if one accepts the premise that original sin rests with the Jews, for migrating to the region, from the 1890's onwards, we are where we are.
Of course Arab anti-semitism is a reality. Just as all kinds of prejudice and xenophobia among all kinds of people against all kinds of people is a reality. Are you really so naive as to think that Israelis are so saintly that Arabs are their favourite kind of people?
So what?
Does the fact that some Arabs dislike Jews - just as the converse is true - justify the indiscriminate killing of Arab civilians?
If that attitude represents the intellectual fruit of several thousand years of human civilisation, maybe the sooner the machines take over the better.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
Virulent Arab anti-semitism *is* a reality , whatever you may claim.
Even if one accepts the premise that original sin rests with the Jews, for migrating to the region, from the 1890's onwards, we are where we are.
Just heard that Stephen Pollard is going to wear the biggst Mogan David he can find to show that he's not afraid of anti-semites.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
Perhaps because the inquiry is more heat than light.
Harry Cole is a dolt, but every dog has his day. I found myself in rare agreement with him today when he said (I paraphrase): "The inquiry seems to be less about the quality of the decisions made, but about the process behind how those decisions were arrived at."
That seemed to me to be an apt critique: that Cummings is a boorish pig is hardly news; that Bozzatron is an irresponsible clown is similarly unsurprising.
So what is the inquiry for?
Is Chris Whitty going to be asked why he ignored the (correct) advice of the entire South African medical profession and deliberately brought hospitality to its knees with his comments at Christmas 2021?
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
Virulent Arab anti-semitism *is* a reality , whatever you may claim.
Even if one accepts the premise that original sin rests with the Jews, for migrating to the region, from the 1890's onwards, we are where we are.
Of course Arab anti-semitism is a reality. Just as all kinds of prejudice and xenophobia among all kinds of people against all kinds of people is a reality. Are you really so naive as to think that Israelis are so saintly that Arabs are their favourite kind of people?
So what?
Does the fact that some Arabs dislike Jews - just as the converse is true - justify the indiscriminate killing of Arab civilians?
If that attitude represents the intellectual fruit of several thousand years of human civilisation, maybe the sooner the machines take over the better.
No. Please read what I was responding to. It was a response to the view that a one-State secular entity was a viable option.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
It seems to have turned into a soap opera where everyone has a dig at everyone else.
I fear there's not going to be much enlightenment.
Quite why its relevant that 'on no day did Number 10 follow covid rules' to the desire to learn how to handle future pandemics, I have no idea. There is too much spite and anger being played out here. As I said earlier today, I think people upset at Brexit are using the covid inquiry as a proxy to hammer at the government.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
A 'one state solution' completely ignores why Israel was set up the way it was and its founding principle, not Muslim antisemitism, but that centuries, nigh millennia, as persecuted minorities in all kinds of societies, culminating in the Holocaust, led many Jews to believe they needed their own state. One they could guarantee wouldn't turn on them one day. With even the majority of those in the diaspora supporting its existence as a lifeboat should the need arise one day. You just need a grain of empathy to see why.
For example, Britain is in theory one of the better places to be an ethnic or religious minority - but Jewish schools and synagogues require security. Scenes on US campuses have been horrifying. Jewish communities in many Arab, North African states and Iran have all but disappeared- with most of those countries either run by thuggish dictators or theocratic zealots who have turned on Jews the moment they could. Venezuela has seen mass emigration by Jews because of its far left government's antisemitism. In fact, pretty much anywhere with a horrid regime, Jews will find themselves on the wrong end of it.
It's simple self-preservation for most to want a homeland where Jews are in the majority and thus keeping them safe. One born of bitter experience, that even in countries where you are perfectly assimilated could turn on you one day. And of course most countries are not liberal democracies that uphold human rights. You only have to look at how Jews are treated across the Middle East to see that the creation of a one state would be a gamble many Israelis simply could not take.
It's just not a serious suggestion when you get remotely below the surface of what it would mean and the dangers involved.
The best hope for peace may well be what might be called a three state one - Gaza prospers as a microstate tourist destination - independent of, but linked to Egypt. Settlers are given a choice between leaving the WB or living under Palestinian rule in the West Bank, with Jerusalem as a free city with shared sovereignty. But that would rely on a brave Israeli government and Palestinian leaders getting their act together instead of wallowing in the thuggish extremism that Israel provides a convenient excuse for and Iran funds and stirs.
The time period prior to the creation of the state of Israel, the worst forms of anti-Semitism were in Europe and, given the historical context, their treatment under (for example) the Ottoman Empire was much better (although still bad). Greater violence towards Jewish people and settled communities in Arab areas increased alongside the growth of Zionism arguably, in my view, and still morally wrongly in reaction to Zionism and not out of historic anti-Semitism. The creation of Israel in the land it was given was understood at the time by the founders of Israel to be a colonialist project; one of settling and occupying land that contained other people. Indeed, other areas were considered, and it is notable that a safe Jewish majority state was not carved from Germany or other European countries despite the Holocaust being a product of European, Christian anti-Semitism and not Middle Eastern, Islamic anti-Semitism.
"Germany is considering abandoning its flagship €100 billion future combat jet project with France and joining a rival programme with Britain instead, The Times has been told.
As an overture to a potential deal, the German chancellor is also understood to be in talks over lifting Berlin’s veto on a delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, which the UK views as an important strategic priority.
A pact along these lines would be a significant coup for London and reflect a steadily worsening rift between France and Germany, which are at odds over issues from energy and air defence to diplomatic protocol."
Macron will be le grumpy again if this transpires.
What's the equivalent AUKUS-style acronym? DEUK? As in "Germany DEUKs French relationship with knockout blow to fighter jet programme".
Storm Ciaran was looking like a predominantly channel and Northern France affair but the high resolution Arpège and Arôme models (both French, but not biased I promise) have developed a sting jet - which satellite images already show forming in Biscay - and are slamming Cornwall and later Kent with extremely strong winds. 80-90mph.
These sorts of gusts are much more damaging when trees still have their foliage than later in the year when they’re bare. Saturated ground also makes tree falls more likely.
A very coastal affair though. The midlands in particular will hardly see a breeze. “Eye of the storm”. Worst hit likely to be the Channel Islands. St Helier also expecting the highest storm tide: 1.5m.
Yes, just been looking at that again. Latest readings also suggest a slightly lower pressure than forecast, which may indicate a slightly more northerly path. Even 20 miles makes quite a big difference to the outcome.
Red warning for Kent and possibly Sussex likely?
Cornwall probably has a higher threshold for red warnings that given strong winds are a more common occurrence.
Still showing 90kt gusts for the Channel Islands and northern France, which really is quite extreme.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
Versailles was just the same as the Germans had imposed on France in 1870 and Russia in in WWI. In fact less stringent. It was just jolly unfair that it was done back to Germany.
Quite a lot of people argued that my not giving ethnic self determination to all the German populations of the countries of Europe was Not Nice and The Cause Of The Next War.
But this wasn't really about Versailles as such - it was about how the map of Europe had ended up after the war and the breaking of the Austro-Hungarian empire (among other things). Instead of giving all the German ethnic populations to Germany, they were part of various countries.
Certainly Hitler used it as his cause for war - he wasn't going to war with the Jews. Officially that is.
And the German populations of the various countries *were* being treated as second class citizens - though not 1% of how badly Germany then treated conquered populations.
Versailles was a lot more generous to Germany than Brest-Litovsk was to Russia.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
The shocking thing today was the Deputy Cabinet Secretary staring into the abyss when she realised there was no plan.
Also very interesting was her point about leaders clinging to 'following the science' as a way to avoid having to think too much about all the other stuff.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
With each new revelation about Boris during Covid that comes out, I find myself very left behind by both PB and the general public, in that I tend to think the same or a bit better of him - of his instincts anyway. This hairdryer up the nose story included. And the grannycide.
I wish he had been a lot more determined and a lot better supported by those around him. Both of which are largely his fault of course.
Storm Ciaran was looking like a predominantly channel and Northern France affair but the high resolution Arpège and Arôme models (both French, but not biased I promise) have developed a sting jet - which satellite images already show forming in Biscay - and are slamming Cornwall and later Kent with extremely strong winds. 80-90mph.
These sorts of gusts are much more damaging when trees still have their foliage than later in the year when they’re bare. Saturated ground also makes tree falls more likely.
A very coastal affair though. The midlands in particular will hardly see a breeze. “Eye of the storm”. Worst hit likely to be the Channel Islands. St Helier also expecting the highest storm tide: 1.5m.
Yes, just been looking at that again. Latest readings also suggest a slightly lower pressure than forecast, which may indicate a slightly more northerly path. Even 20 miles makes quite a big difference to the outcome.
Red warning for Kent and possibly Sussex likely?
Cornwall probably has a higher threshold for red warnings that given strong winds are a more common occurrence.
Still showing 90kt gusts for the Channel Islands and northern France, which really is quite extreme.
I'm a little nervous about the trellising (and the caravan site office, which will be side-on to the wind) in my vineyard. Hopefully far enough North and inland to escape the worst gusts. But I'll find out on Friday when I'm next there. Not in the mood for an overturned caravan.
"Germany is considering abandoning its flagship €100 billion future combat jet project with France and joining a rival programme with Britain instead, The Times has been told.
As an overture to a potential deal, the German chancellor is also understood to be in talks over lifting Berlin’s veto on a delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, which the UK views as an important strategic priority.
A pact along these lines would be a significant coup for London and reflect a steadily worsening rift between France and Germany, which are at odds over issues from energy and air defence to diplomatic protocol."
Macron will be le grumpy again if this transpires.
(Holds up hand to ear, fingers and thumb together like a duck)
"What's that, Mr Flibble? Are the French deliberately buggering up an international cooperative defense project?"
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
The shocking thing today was the Deputy Cabinet Secretary staring into the abyss when she realised there was no plan.
Also very interesting was her point about leaders clinging to 'following the science' as a way to avoid having to think too much about all the other stuff.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
It seems to have turned into a soap opera where everyone has a dig at everyone else.
I fear there's not going to be much enlightenment.
Quite why its relevant that 'on no day did Number 10 follow covid rules' to the desire to learn how to handle future pandemics, I have no idea. There is too much spite and anger being played out here. As I said earlier today, I think people upset at Brexit are using the covid inquiry as a proxy to hammer at the government.
I really do not see the Brexit angle but from what little of the Covid inquiry I've seen, it does seem focused on things other than lessons for next time, fascinating as the Number 10 psychodrama is, but no doubt the feeling is we need first to explore what went wrong (and right) last time.
"Germany is considering abandoning its flagship €100 billion future combat jet project with France and joining a rival programme with Britain instead, The Times has been told.
As an overture to a potential deal, the German chancellor is also understood to be in talks over lifting Berlin’s veto on a delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, which the UK views as an important strategic priority.
A pact along these lines would be a significant coup for London and reflect a steadily worsening rift between France and Germany, which are at odds over issues from energy and air defence to diplomatic protocol."
Macron will be le grumpy again if this transpires.
Sounds good. Just one thing. For both Tornado and Eurofighter, Germany claimed the largest share of the work on the basis of the largest order. Then cut their order and demanded that their workshare stay the same - or they would collapse the whole project.
There is a simple solution.
The U.K. puts in an initial order for the new fighter of 15,000.
When it comes to actually buying them, it’s a few hundred. Then demand we keep our work share.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
A functional organisation isn't one where everything is perfect, and a dysfunctional one isn't one where everything is chaos.
Name any famous corporate failure, for example, and there is no doubt that 95%+ of what was going on was basically people getting on with their respective jobs in a pretty normal way. But if the dysfunction is senior enough, pivotal at key moments, and not subject to the checks provided by a robust decision making process, all that good work is for nothing.
An issue for the Inquiry is whether the examples of dysfunction (which few other than the usual swivel-eyed loons on this site would seriously dispute were pretty ugly) were isolated incidents or whether they went unchecked and materially influenced the broader course of events. If so, it's how best to manage that through strengthening processes - noting that many key figures are no longer frontline figures and have headed off into showbiz or whatever else.
I am no fan of Boris, but he isn't an MP anymore so what's it to us, the public, what jobs he gets? I don't watch GB News, but nobody is forcing anybody to watch it or pay for it via a telly tax.
True. And I wonder if the assumption that he's totally written off isn't premature. We'll see what his evidence says, but more importantly, he's keeping in the news, which automatically makes him still relevant - and perhaps with a post-election future.
I think he remains a fairly influential onlooker in the same mould as Blair, Farage, Heseltine, Corbyn, Heath etc.
I'm not sure Ted remains an influential onlooker ?
Not now for obvious reasons but he did throughout Thatcher's tenure.
Heath certainly tried to stay in political relevance - his hatred of Thatcher slowly mutated into a hatred of the voters who refused to acknowledge that he (Ted Heath) was right. By the 90s he was openly praising the Chinese government - chiefly for not listening to The People on Important Decisions.
Boris dropped straight back into journalism - with rather a low political content. He certainly isn't trying to challenge the leadership of the Conservative Party in any meaningful way.
I don't know if you've read 'Agent Lavender', an Alt-History about what if Harold Wilson really was a Soviet spy, but Heath features large in that TL.
He makes his comeback in a big way as after Wilson runs off to the Soviets, Labour are 'banned' (for a bit) and Thatcher replaced as she isn't up to it. In steps Ted, and whilst its been a while, the author perfectly captures Heath's glee at being Prime Minister again.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
Perhaps because the inquiry is more heat than light.
Harry Cole is a dolt, but every dog has his day. I found myself in rare agreement with him today when he said (I paraphrase): "The inquiry seems to be less about the quality of the decisions made, but about the process behind how those decisions were arrived at."
That seemed to me to be an apt critique: that Cummings is a boorish pig is hardly news; that Bozzatron is an irresponsible clown is similarly unsurprising.
So what is the inquiry for?
Is Chris Whitty going to be asked why he ignored the (correct) advice of the entire South African medical profession and deliberately brought hospitality to its knees with his comments at Christmas 2021?
Indeed. Maybe it is just because this is one module of several.
I want answers about decisions and science and models and planning more than I want to know that the Thick of It was far too tame compared to the ship of fools that was running the government.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
"...h are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians."
No. It's perfectly possible to see that the attack had 'causes' (multiple); but also to say that that is essentially irrelevant. Hamas did what they did not because of the Palestinian 'cause'; but because they are anti-Semitic, homophobic and many other nasty things. Oh. and they also like power and money.
That is what you are incapable of seeing. Hamas is not dong this for the Palestinians; or for some sort of historic revenge. They are doing it because they are religious zealots who are about as far from what a leftist should see as 'good' as it is possible to get. But common enemies makes odd friends.
Your 'one state solution' is also one that will see genocide of the Jews in it; and you don't really address that. How can Jews live in a Hamas-led state? And if you don't think it'd be run by Hamas (or Iran, through proxies), how do you think you'll get them to give up power?
You attack Israel for what it is 'proposing' to do. You ignore what Hamas, Iran and others want to do to Israel.
And Jews.
Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es
I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews" by a) pointing out that European anti-Semitism has historically been much worse and we have manages to create a society that is much more tolerant of Jewish people, if still harbouring anti-Semites and b) that truth and reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens should occur. Do you think that statement somehow endorses the killing of all Jewish Israeli citizens? Or the creation of a Hamas-led state?
I have already expressed why I dismiss the idea that Hamas is only motivated by anti-Semitism - both above and elsewhere - and until you can explain why that is their only motivation outside of "because they are evil", I am not going to treat it like a grown up argument, because it isn't.
What single thing did I write here, or elsewhere, that suggests I believe Hamas is "good"? Explicable, given the context, yes. But good?
I do, above, denounce what Israel is proposing to do. I will also denounce any future violence aimed at civilians that may come from any state or non state actor that is not Israel. I can do both. But you cannot do the first.
And Israel is, categorically, not a proxy for all Jewish people.
"I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews ..." "
And your 'proposal' may happen; as it did in Europe. After the Jews have been nearly wiped out, or totally wiped out. For the Holocaust was the one big thing that made anti-Semitism in Europe unacceptable for most in Europe. Is that a risk you are really willing to take?
I did not say Hamas are only motivated by racism. They are also motivated by power, religion, ideology, politics and money. It's a heady mix. But racism is in there.
Again, you think my proposal for truth and reconciliation, for how to foster less anti-Semitism with Palestinian Arabs - is to allow them to commit a genocide against Jewish Israelis? Again, this is not a sincere response to anything I have said, and I will not treat it as such.
And you cannot conceive, cannot allow that some of their ideology, some of their political thought, is because of the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza by the state of Israel - and that the state of Israel is unjust in its treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
How ill you make 'truth and reconciliation' work? What happens if/when it fails? (My guess is that it would, very quickly). How do you protect the Jews?
You judge me as insincere; fair enough, You are wrong, though.
See, that feels like a sincere question. And my answer, although probably unsatisfying, is "with great difficulty".
I think it would need international oversight, I think it would need international cooperation and I think it would need a great deal of international bureaucracy. It would also require significant political will to not allow it to fail. Something akin to the Nuremburg trials and the occupation of East and West Germany, with troops from a coalition of countries assuring the safety of Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians. Hell, akin to the Balfour Declaration and the partitioning of land, except with this time understanding that you cannot impose a solution only one side signed up to. It would mean involving Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and, potentially, even Iranian politicians. These are doable things, it would just take work - and a degree of work that certain states (namely Israel and the US) have hitherto refused to do. It would lead to the trials of Israeli politicians, I'm sure, as well as Hamas terrorists. That is what is required.
Yes, this is near utopian (although I don't think it is impossible). But compared to the current position of "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to" I think it is significantly preferable.
Do you sincerely think that the current position is "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to"?
In practice, yes. Specifically the current political position of all the significant countries (the US, most EU nations, other major nations involved in the UN) is to "let Israel do what it wants". And I sincerely believe that the current government of Israel, and basically Israeli government policy since the failure of the Oslo accords, is to let the Palestinians die off quietly, and use any time they react violently to that as an excuse for mass violence.
The shape of the population pyramid suggests that if this is indeed the Israeli policy, it must be one of the least successful polcies in history. It's also true that Israel did unilaterally destroy settlements in the Gaza Strip, so your charactarisation of events since the Oslo Accords is at best one-sided.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
Virulent Arab anti-semitism *is* a reality , whatever you may claim.
Even if one accepts the premise that original sin rests with the Jews, for migrating to the region, from the 1890's onwards, we are where we are.
Of course Arab anti-semitism is a reality. Just as all kinds of prejudice and xenophobia among all kinds of people against all kinds of people is a reality. Are you really so naive as to think that Israelis are so saintly that Arabs are their favourite kind of people?
So what?
Does the fact that some Arabs dislike Jews - just as the converse is true - justify the indiscriminate killing of Arab civilians?
If that attitude represents the intellectual fruit of several thousand years of human civilisation, maybe the sooner the machines take over the better.
No. Please read what I was responding to. It was a response to the view that a one-State secular entity was a viable option.
I have just reread it, and if your point was other than to justify the present killing of Arab civilians, you need to explain more clearly what you were trying to argue.
Just try to explain your argument in a similar way to the poster you were responding to.
Off topic, but of interest to many bettors: "It’s no surprise that weather can affect our mood. Bleak winter days can trigger sadness, while extra-hot days can make people feel angrier. But some research shows that unexpectedly nice weather can cloud our judgment and make us more optimistic." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/28/risky-behavior-good-sunny-weather/
For example, in the US more lottery tickets are sold when the weather is "unexpectedly nice".
(Serious bettors may want to look at the research for themselves.)
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
A functional organisation isn't one where everything is perfect, and a dysfunctional one isn't one where everything is chaos.
Name any famous corporate failure, for example, and there is no doubt that 95%+ of what was going on was basically people getting on with their respective jobs in a pretty normal way. But if the dysfunction is senior enough, pivotal at key moments, and not subject to the checks provided by a robust decision making process, all that good work is for nothing.
An issue for the Inquiry is whether the examples of dysfunction (which few other than the usual swivel-eyed loons on this site would seriously dispute were pretty ugly) were isolated incidents or whether they went unchecked and materially influenced the broader course of events. If so, it's how best to manage that through strengthening processes - noting that many key figures are no longer frontline figures and have headed off into showbiz or whatever else.
Do we really need an inquiry to work out that perhaps the best people to run the country are not a panellist from a topical news comedy show, backed up fellow narcissists who thought The Thick of It was an instruction manual?
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
With each new revelation about Boris during Covid that comes out, I find myself very left behind by both PB and the general public, in that I tend to think the same or a bit better of him - of his instincts anyway. This hairdryer up the nose story included. And the grannycide.
I wish he had been a lot more determined and a lot better supported by those around him. Both of which are largely his fault of course.
The hairdryer business - he was wasting working time of multiple people on that. Including people who knew a lot better than him. And whose job it was to be so. At a crritical period.
Storm Ciaran was looking like a predominantly channel and Northern France affair but the high resolution Arpège and Arôme models (both French, but not biased I promise) have developed a sting jet - which satellite images already show forming in Biscay - and are slamming Cornwall and later Kent with extremely strong winds. 80-90mph.
These sorts of gusts are much more damaging when trees still have their foliage than later in the year when they’re bare. Saturated ground also makes tree falls more likely.
A very coastal affair though. The midlands in particular will hardly see a breeze. “Eye of the storm”. Worst hit likely to be the Channel Islands. St Helier also expecting the highest storm tide: 1.5m.
Yes, just been looking at that again. Latest readings also suggest a slightly lower pressure than forecast, which may indicate a slightly more northerly path. Even 20 miles makes quite a big difference to the outcome.
Red warning for Kent and possibly Sussex likely?
Cornwall probably has a higher threshold for red warnings that given strong winds are a more common occurrence.
Still showing 90kt gusts for the Channel Islands and northern France, which really is quite extreme.
Record UK Low possible?
Not in the pressure sense, no. This is forecast at about 950hPa, the record is below 930hPa.
A record for London? Still unlikely, but it won't be far off.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
Which would at least in part have been true. The treatment of Germany at Versailles was a big part of the reason Hitler's actions were tolerated for so long.
While true, its important to consider how Germany behaved as a victor in the East in 1917-1918. They were every bit as severe on a defeated opponent as the Western Allies. The Germans were also able to trade on the stab in the back myth - no foreign troops made it to German soil in 1918 (they would have though, the allies i complete ascendancy by then.
In Our Time's most recent episode is on John Maynard Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", his polemic against Versailles. Interesting stuff. It's at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001qtpf
One can, of course, critique the Treaty of Versailles without in any way condoning the Nazis.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
"Germany is considering abandoning its flagship €100 billion future combat jet project with France and joining a rival programme with Britain instead, The Times has been told.
As an overture to a potential deal, the German chancellor is also understood to be in talks over lifting Berlin’s veto on a delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, which the UK views as an important strategic priority.
A pact along these lines would be a significant coup for London and reflect a steadily worsening rift between France and Germany, which are at odds over issues from energy and air defence to diplomatic protocol."
Macron will be le grumpy again if this transpires.
Incidentally, if the Germans join GCAD, it'll be a German/Swedish/Japanese/Italian program with British support. Color me stupid, but historically when the Germans, Swedes, Japanese and Italians join in a military project it doesn't always go as planned.
Given the propensity of the British to name their fighters after wind/storms (Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest, Whirlwind, and of course Hurricane), we may end up calling it the RAF Divine Wind...
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
With each new revelation about Boris during Covid that comes out, I find myself very left behind by both PB and the general public, in that I tend to think the same or a bit better of him - of his instincts anyway. This hairdryer up the nose story included. And the grannycide.
I wish he had been a lot more determined and a lot better supported by those around him. Both of which are largely his fault of course.
The hairdryer business - he was wasting working time of multiple people on that. Including people who knew a lot better than him. And whose job it was to be so. At a critical period.
We have very scant details on what the process was. If he got a sarcastic fob off from one person, I think he was justified in seeking a fuller explanation of why the theory propounded in the video was at fault. If he got a full answer from the first person he asked, I highly doubt he'd have persisted. These people are meant to be 'the experts', and as the old aphorism states, if you can't explain something clearly to a layman, either you don't understand it or you don't want them to. An expert Government advisor on viruses should not have found this a difficult or time-consuming task.
I am no fan of Boris, but he isn't an MP anymore so what's it to us, the public, what jobs he gets? I don't watch GB News, but nobody is forcing anybody to watch it or pay for it via a telly tax.
True. And I wonder if the assumption that he's totally written off isn't premature. We'll see what his evidence says, but more importantly, he's keeping in the news, which automatically makes him still relevant - and perhaps with a post-election future.
I think he remains a fairly influential onlooker in the same mould as Blair, Farage, Heseltine, Corbyn, Heath etc.
I'm not sure Ted remains an influential onlooker ?
Not now for obvious reasons but he did throughout Thatcher's tenure.
Heath certainly tried to stay in political relevance - his hatred of Thatcher slowly mutated into a hatred of the voters who refused to acknowledge that he (Ted Heath) was right. By the 90s he was openly praising the Chinese government - chiefly for not listening to The People on Important Decisions.
Boris dropped straight back into journalism - with rather a low political content. He certainly isn't trying to challenge the leadership of the Conservative Party in any meaningful way.
I don't know if you've read 'Agent Lavender', an Alt-History about what if Harold Wilson really was a Soviet spy, but Heath features large in that TL.
He makes his comeback in a big way as after Wilson runs off to the Soviets, Labour are 'banned' (for a bit) and Thatcher replaced as she isn't up to it. In steps Ted, and whilst its been a while, the author perfectly captures Heath's glee at being Prime Minister again.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
With each new revelation about Boris during Covid that comes out, I find myself very left behind by both PB and the general public, in that I tend to think the same or a bit better of him - of his instincts anyway. This hairdryer up the nose story included. And the grannycide.
I wish he had been a lot more determined and a lot better supported by those around him. Both of which are largely his fault of course.
The hairdryer business - he was wasting working time of multiple people on that. Including people who knew a lot better than him. And whose job it was to be so. At a critical period.
We have very scant details on what the process was. If he got a sarcastic fob off from one person, I think he was justified in seeking a fuller explanation of why the theory propounded in the video was at fault. If he got a full answer from the first person he asked, I highly doubt he'd have persisted. These people are meant to be 'the experts', and as the old aphorism states, if you can't explain something clearly to a layman, either you don't understand it or you don't want them to. An expert Government advisor on viruses should not have found this a difficult or time-consuming task.
I disagree. At most he should have sent a single inquiry to one person - if that. Not circulated the whole group and made it official business.
"Germany is considering abandoning its flagship €100 billion future combat jet project with France and joining a rival programme with Britain instead, The Times has been told.
As an overture to a potential deal, the German chancellor is also understood to be in talks over lifting Berlin’s veto on a delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, which the UK views as an important strategic priority.
A pact along these lines would be a significant coup for London and reflect a steadily worsening rift between France and Germany, which are at odds over issues from energy and air defence to diplomatic protocol."
Macron will be le grumpy again if this transpires.
Incidentally, if the Germans join GCAD, it'll be a German/Swedish/Japanese/Italian program with British support. Color me stupid, but historically when the Germans, Swedes, Japanese and Italians join in a military project it doesn't always go as planned.
Given the propensity of the British to name their fighters after wind/storms (Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest, Whirlwind, and of course Hurricane), we may end up calling it the RAF Divine Wind...
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
Virulent Arab anti-semitism *is* a reality , whatever you may claim.
Even if one accepts the premise that original sin rests with the Jews, for migrating to the region, from the 1890's onwards, we are where we are.
Of course Arab anti-semitism is a reality. Just as all kinds of prejudice and xenophobia among all kinds of people against all kinds of people is a reality. Are you really so naive as to think that Israelis are so saintly that Arabs are their favourite kind of people?
So what?
Does the fact that some Arabs dislike Jews - just as the converse is true - justify the indiscriminate killing of Arab civilians?
If that attitude represents the intellectual fruit of several thousand years of human civilisation, maybe the sooner the machines take over the better.
No. Please read what I was responding to. It was a response to the view that a one-State secular entity was a viable option.
I have just reread it, and if your point was other than to justify the present killing of Arab civilians, you need to explain more clearly what you were trying to argue.
Just try to explain your argument in a similar way to the poster you were responding to.
I'm not responsible for the way you choose to read something.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
With each new revelation about Boris during Covid that comes out, I find myself very left behind by both PB and the general public, in that I tend to think the same or a bit better of him - of his instincts anyway. This hairdryer up the nose story included. And the grannycide.
I wish he had been a lot more determined and a lot better supported by those around him. Both of which are largely his fault of course.
The hairdryer business - he was wasting working time of multiple people on that. Including people who knew a lot better than him. And whose job it was to be so. At a critical period.
We have very scant details on what the process was. If he got a sarcastic fob off from one person, I think he was justified in seeking a fuller explanation of why the theory propounded in the video was at fault. If he got a full answer from the first person he asked, I highly doubt he'd have persisted. These people are meant to be 'the experts', and as the old aphorism states, if you can't explain something clearly to a layman, either you don't understand it or you don't want them to. An expert Government advisor on viruses should not have found this a difficult or time-consuming task.
I disagree. At most he should have sent a single inquiry to one person - if that. Not circulated the whole group and made it official business.
Clearly you have a far lower opinion of what a Government expert should be capable of than even me.
So the government was laughing at the Italians for their lockdown and its typical of no 10 with Bozo in charge that they thought the UK would just sail through without a care in the world .
The spillover from Brexit hubris and the delusional “ we are special “ seems to have led to more bad decisions .
Anyone still thinking the lying oaf would have a better chance than Sunak at the next GE needs to stop drinking the Kool aid .
I am no fan of Boris, but he isn't an MP anymore so what's it to us, the public, what jobs he gets? I don't watch GB News, but nobody is forcing anybody to watch it or pay for it via a telly tax.
True. And I wonder if the assumption that he's totally written off isn't premature. We'll see what his evidence says, but more importantly, he's keeping in the news, which automatically makes him still relevant - and perhaps with a post-election future.
I think he remains a fairly influential onlooker in the same mould as Blair, Farage, Heseltine, Corbyn, Heath etc.
I'm not sure Ted remains an influential onlooker ?
Not now for obvious reasons but he did throughout Thatcher's tenure.
Heath certainly tried to stay in political relevance - his hatred of Thatcher slowly mutated into a hatred of the voters who refused to acknowledge that he (Ted Heath) was right. By the 90s he was openly praising the Chinese government - chiefly for not listening to The People on Important Decisions.
Boris dropped straight back into journalism - with rather a low political content. He certainly isn't trying to challenge the leadership of the Conservative Party in any meaningful way.
I don't know if you've read 'Agent Lavender', an Alt-History about what if Harold Wilson really was a Soviet spy, but Heath features large in that TL.
He makes his comeback in a big way as after Wilson runs off to the Soviets, Labour are 'banned' (for a bit) and Thatcher replaced as she isn't up to it. In steps Ted, and whilst its been a while, the author perfectly captures Heath's glee at being Prime Minister again.
"Germany is considering abandoning its flagship €100 billion future combat jet project with France and joining a rival programme with Britain instead, The Times has been told.
As an overture to a potential deal, the German chancellor is also understood to be in talks over lifting Berlin’s veto on a delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, which the UK views as an important strategic priority.
A pact along these lines would be a significant coup for London and reflect a steadily worsening rift between France and Germany, which are at odds over issues from energy and air defence to diplomatic protocol."
Macron will be le grumpy again if this transpires.
Incidentally, if the Germans join GCAD, it'll be a German/Swedish/Japanese/Italian program with British support. Color me stupid, but historically when the Germans, Swedes, Japanese and Italians join in a military project it doesn't always go as planned.
Given the propensity of the British to name their fighters after wind/storms (Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest, Whirlwind, and of course Hurricane), we may end up calling it the RAF Divine Wind...
Who can forget the de Havilland Breeze or the Fairey Gust?
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
A 'one state solution' completely ignores why Israel was set up the way it was and its founding principle, not Muslim antisemitism, but that centuries, nigh millennia, as persecuted minorities in all kinds of societies, culminating in the Holocaust, led many Jews to believe they needed their own state. One they could guarantee wouldn't turn on them one day. With even the majority of those in the diaspora supporting its existence as a lifeboat should the need arise one day. You just need a grain of empathy to see why.
For example, Britain is in theory one of the better places to be an ethnic or religious minority - but Jewish schools and synagogues require security. Scenes on US campuses have been horrifying. Jewish communities in many Arab, North African states and Iran have all but disappeared- with most of those countries either run by thuggish dictators or theocratic zealots who have turned on Jews the moment they could. Venezuela has seen mass emigration by Jews because of its far left government's antisemitism. In fact, pretty much anywhere with a horrid regime, Jews will find themselves on the wrong end of it.
It's simple self-preservation for most to want a homeland where Jews are in the majority and thus keeping them safe. One born of bitter experience, that even in countries where you are perfectly assimilated could turn on you one day. And of course most countries are not liberal democracies that uphold human rights. You only have to look at how Jews are treated across the Middle East to see that the creation of a one state would be a gamble many Israelis simply could not take.
It's just not a serious suggestion when you get remotely below the surface of what it would mean and the dangers involved.
The best hope for peace may well be what might be called a three state one - Gaza prospers as a microstate tourist destination - independent of, but linked to Egypt. Settlers are given a choice between leaving the WB or living under Palestinian rule in the West Bank, with Jerusalem as a free city with shared sovereignty. But that would rely on a brave Israeli government and Palestinian leaders getting their act together instead of wallowing in the thuggish extremism that Israel provides a convenient excuse for and Iran funds and stirs.
The time period prior to the creation of the state of Israel, the worst forms of anti-Semitism were in Europe and, given the historical context, their treatment under (for example) the Ottoman Empire was much better (although still bad). Greater violence towards Jewish people and settled communities in Arab areas increased alongside the growth of Zionism arguably, in my view, and still morally wrongly in reaction to Zionism and not out of historic anti-Semitism. The creation of Israel in the land it was given was understood at the time by the founders of Israel to be a colonialist project; one of settling and occupying land that contained other people. Indeed, other areas were considered, and it is notable that a safe Jewish majority state was not carved from Germany or other European countries despite the Holocaust being a product of European, Christian anti-Semitism and not Middle Eastern, Islamic anti-Semitism.
That doesn't address the point though - which is that the motivation for wanting a Jewish majority state is sound and born of centuries of experience, and the evidence of today. It is also wrong to regard it as 'colonialist' in any normal sense. It's much more complicated than that, isn't it? Given Jewish people's historic ties to the area, existing communities, and the fact for many the move to Israel was motivated by a desire to flee persecution - particularly in Arab states.
Plus as Empires broke up in the first two-thirds of the 20th Century it was hardy unusual for fairly drastic population changes and exchanges to take place as new states were created based upon the principles of national self-determination.
Finally, other than a few extremists, Israel had no desire to rule over Palestinians or the whole of the Holy Land. It was the Arab countries who rejected the initial partition plans and went to war - and lost. While their leaders (as opposed to people) are far from blameless given the then Grand Mufti's links to Nazism. It just doesn't fit that easy narrative.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
The shocking thing today was the Deputy Cabinet Secretary staring into the abyss when she realised there was no plan.
Also very interesting was her point about leaders clinging to 'following the science' as a way to avoid having to think too much about all the other stuff.
Has Hunt been asked yet why there was no plan?
I kept a Swine Flu leaflet which oddly enough turned up yesterday during some tidying. In it, it details the government's advice (including the non-use of masks, interestingly) and the overall plan.
I think the problem was not that they didn't have a plan, it was that they had a plan for the wrong pandemic.
"Germany is considering abandoning its flagship €100 billion future combat jet project with France and joining a rival programme with Britain instead, The Times has been told.
As an overture to a potential deal, the German chancellor is also understood to be in talks over lifting Berlin’s veto on a delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, which the UK views as an important strategic priority.
A pact along these lines would be a significant coup for London and reflect a steadily worsening rift between France and Germany, which are at odds over issues from energy and air defence to diplomatic protocol."
Macron will be le grumpy again if this transpires.
Sounds good. Just one thing. For both Tornado and Eurofighter, Germany claimed the largest share of the work on the basis of the largest order. Then cut their order and demanded that their workshare stay the same - or they would collapse the whole project.
There is a simple solution.
The U.K. puts in an initial order for the new fighter of 15,000.
When it comes to actually buying them, it’s a few hundred. Then demand we keep our work share.
Similar shenanigans happened with Airbus and Europcopter orders. (And aren't unknown in the US with State National Guards either.)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
Would give 31 Lab gains from SNP. Thus Lab on 32 and SNP on 16. Con would hold their 6. LibDems on 3. According to Electoral Calculus using the new boundaries.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
That is absolutely disgusting. That poor woman. I hope whoever did this can be found and punished accordingly. As I have written on here, I sympathise greatly with the Palestinians, but there is no excuse whatsoever for antisemitism. I wish these idiots could understand that they are doing their cause no good at all with this kind of despicable behaviour. Utter morons.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
Sweet holy Jesus. Is that true???
I wouldn’t have posted it if not.
I’m just flabbergasted. That this should happen in the UK in 2023. Shameful
I am no fan of Boris, but he isn't an MP anymore so what's it to us, the public, what jobs he gets? I don't watch GB News, but nobody is forcing anybody to watch it or pay for it via a telly tax.
True. And I wonder if the assumption that he's totally written off isn't premature. We'll see what his evidence says, but more importantly, he's keeping in the news, which automatically makes him still relevant - and perhaps with a post-election future.
I think he remains a fairly influential onlooker in the same mould as Blair, Farage, Heseltine, Corbyn, Heath etc.
I'm not sure Ted remains an influential onlooker ?
Not now for obvious reasons but he did throughout Thatcher's tenure.
Heath certainly tried to stay in political relevance - his hatred of Thatcher slowly mutated into a hatred of the voters who refused to acknowledge that he (Ted Heath) was right. By the 90s he was openly praising the Chinese government - chiefly for not listening to The People on Important Decisions.
Boris dropped straight back into journalism - with rather a low political content. He certainly isn't trying to challenge the leadership of the Conservative Party in any meaningful way.
I don't know if you've read 'Agent Lavender', an Alt-History about what if Harold Wilson really was a Soviet spy, but Heath features large in that TL.
He makes his comeback in a big way as after Wilson runs off to the Soviets, Labour are 'banned' (for a bit) and Thatcher replaced as she isn't up to it. In steps Ted, and whilst its been a while, the author perfectly captures Heath's glee at being Prime Minister again.
A streamer, political activist and video essayist I enjoy has rephrased a Marxist quote to describe what she sees as the problem of modern political discourse: "They do not know it, but they do it" to "They know that it is nothing, but they are doing it". (Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es to Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es)
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
Total agency is given to the state of Israel. The stated intent of "minimising civilian lives" is taken at face value. The actions of mass killing, child murder and displacement of Palestinians is waved away because of the need to prevent the mass killing, child murder and displacement of Israelis at the hand of Hamas is somehow logical, not paradoxical. The understanding that what made Hamas' attack so abhorrent was their targeting of civilians occurs at the same time as a defence of the indiscriminate bombing of North Gaza, of hospitals and refugee camps.
It reaches heights of absurdity with people here suggesting that Israel is making a tactical mistake in the eyes of the international community, instead of using the impunity that the international community has given it to do an ethnic cleansing, when it does these things. That "Israel has the right to defend itself" when attacked, but that Gaza, under blockade from land air and sea from Israel since 2005, has no reason to produce such hatred that could explain the violence of Hamas.
I can denounce Hamas and Israel, I can point to the causal acts and the historical parallels, the UN accounts over decades, that end up with this point we are in now. I can suggest what I think is the only political solution, one where Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens live in one state after truth and reconciliation happens. And the response boils down to "Palestinian Arabs / all Arabs are so inherently anti-Semitic that that is impossible", as if European anti-Semitism wasn't historically worse. I can argue against the genocide and ethnic cleansing happening now to the Palestinian people, and people here will defend it by pointing to the horrific genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Europe and the Middle East that partially led to the creation of the state of Israel, as if that somehow makes sense.
You cannot sincerely care about the value of life, of dead babies, of dying civilians, you cannot sincerely decry genocide, you cannot sincerely claim that the right to national self defence is sacrosanct and at the same time defend the acts of the state of Israel - what it has done to the Palestinians in the past, what it is doing now, and what it is proposing to do in the future.
"...h are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians."
No. It's perfectly possible to see that the attack had 'causes' (multiple); but also to say that that is essentially irrelevant. Hamas did what they did not because of the Palestinian 'cause'; but because they are anti-Semitic, homophobic and many other nasty things. Oh. and they also like power and money.
That is what you are incapable of seeing. Hamas is not dong this for the Palestinians; or for some sort of historic revenge. They are doing it because they are religious zealots who are about as far from what a leftist should see as 'good' as it is possible to get. But common enemies makes odd friends.
Your 'one state solution' is also one that will see genocide of the Jews in it; and you don't really address that. How can Jews live in a Hamas-led state? And if you don't think it'd be run by Hamas (or Iran, through proxies), how do you think you'll get them to give up power?
You attack Israel for what it is 'proposing' to do. You ignore what Hamas, Iran and others want to do to Israel.
And Jews.
Sie wissen, dass es nichts ist, aber sie tun es
I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews" by a) pointing out that European anti-Semitism has historically been much worse and we have manages to create a society that is much more tolerant of Jewish people, if still harbouring anti-Semites and b) that truth and reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli citizens should occur. Do you think that statement somehow endorses the killing of all Jewish Israeli citizens? Or the creation of a Hamas-led state?
I have already expressed why I dismiss the idea that Hamas is only motivated by anti-Semitism - both above and elsewhere - and until you can explain why that is their only motivation outside of "because they are evil", I am not going to treat it like a grown up argument, because it isn't.
What single thing did I write here, or elsewhere, that suggests I believe Hamas is "good"? Explicable, given the context, yes. But good?
I do, above, denounce what Israel is proposing to do. I will also denounce any future violence aimed at civilians that may come from any state or non state actor that is not Israel. I can do both. But you cannot do the first.
And Israel is, categorically, not a proxy for all Jewish people.
"I already address the issue of "a one state solution being a genocide of the Jews ..." "
And your 'proposal' may happen; as it did in Europe. After the Jews have been nearly wiped out, or totally wiped out. For the Holocaust was the one big thing that made anti-Semitism in Europe unacceptable for most in Europe. Is that a risk you are really willing to take?
I did not say Hamas are only motivated by racism. They are also motivated by power, religion, ideology, politics and money. It's a heady mix. But racism is in there.
Again, you think my proposal for truth and reconciliation, for how to foster less anti-Semitism with Palestinian Arabs - is to allow them to commit a genocide against Jewish Israelis? Again, this is not a sincere response to anything I have said, and I will not treat it as such.
And you cannot conceive, cannot allow that some of their ideology, some of their political thought, is because of the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza by the state of Israel - and that the state of Israel is unjust in its treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
How ill you make 'truth and reconciliation' work? What happens if/when it fails? (My guess is that it would, very quickly). How do you protect the Jews?
You judge me as insincere; fair enough, You are wrong, though.
See, that feels like a sincere question. And my answer, although probably unsatisfying, is "with great difficulty".
I think it would need international oversight, I think it would need international cooperation and I think it would need a great deal of international bureaucracy. It would also require significant political will to not allow it to fail. Something akin to the Nuremburg trials and the occupation of East and West Germany, with troops from a coalition of countries assuring the safety of Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians. Hell, akin to the Balfour Declaration and the partitioning of land, except with this time understanding that you cannot impose a solution only one side signed up to. It would mean involving Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and, potentially, even Iranian politicians. These are doable things, it would just take work - and a degree of work that certain states (namely Israel and the US) have hitherto refused to do. It would lead to the trials of Israeli politicians, I'm sure, as well as Hamas terrorists. That is what is required.
Yes, this is near utopian (although I don't think it is impossible). But compared to the current position of "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to" I think it is significantly preferable.
Do you sincerely think that the current position is "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to"?
In practice, yes. Specifically the current political position of all the significant countries (the US, most EU nations, other major nations involved in the UN) is to "let Israel do what it wants". And I sincerely believe that the current government of Israel, and basically Israeli government policy since the failure of the Oslo accords, is to let the Palestinians die off quietly, and use any time they react violently to that as an excuse for mass violence.
The shape of the population pyramid suggests that if this is indeed the Israeli policy, it must be one of the least successful polcies in history. It's also true that Israel did unilaterally destroy settlements in the Gaza Strip, so your charactarisation of events since the Oslo Accords is at best one-sided.
Everybody makes up their own stories as to what "Israeli policy" is; I think it is possibly the least well understood and yet most definitely asserted topic in Western political discourse.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
That is absolutely disgusting. That poor woman. I hope whoever did this can be found and punished accordingly. As I have written on here, I sympathise greatly with the Palestinians, but there is no excuse whatsoever for antisemitism. I wish these idiots could understand that they are doing their cause no good at all with this kind of despicable behaviour. Utter morons.
They have no cause. Don't give them the crumb of a cause.
As DavidL has been pointing out, figures like those seriously cut the GB lead needed for a Labour majority. 5% lead with other Parties staying the same gives a Labour majority of 2. Also. With a dead heat in votes, the Tories would now have only 5 more seats than Labour. Cons would need a 3% lead for their own majority of 2.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
The shocking thing today was the Deputy Cabinet Secretary staring into the abyss when she realised there was no plan.
Also very interesting was her point about leaders clinging to 'following the science' as a way to avoid having to think too much about all the other stuff.
Has Hunt been asked yet why there was no plan?
I kept a Swine Flu leaflet which oddly enough turned up yesterday during some tidying. In it, it details the government's advice (including the non-use of masks, interestingly) and the overall plan.
I think the problem was not that they didn't have a plan, it was that they had a plan for the wrong pandemic.
Wasn't there talk at the time that the UK's model was for a Really Bad Flu Year?
Had that been the case (herd immunity by infection for about 50000 deaths), then letting it wash over might have been unpleasant but rational.
I have seen numerous videos this week of preachers in British mosques calling for the death or destruction of Israelis/jews in various ways
At what point does the government develop a backbone and start arresting these people. They are on video, recorded, openly stating this stuff
They aren’t hiding away
For some reason (can’t think why) they have acquired the sense they are immune from British laws and British norms. It is time to tell them this is not the case
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
I can direct you to a kid in Ealing who was attacked for being dressed like an 18th Cent. German farmer.....
IIRC anti-semitic incidents are up 15x, anti-muslim incidents 2x
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
Sweet holy Jesus. Is that true???
It's fairly standard as a racist attack - been done many times to black people.
It happened to Lenny Henry years back - he made a whole routine about imagining how they imagined the logistics of it.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
I can direct you to a kid in Ealing who was attacked for being dressed like an 18th Cent. German farmer.....
IIRC anti-semitic incidents are up 15x, anti-muslim incidents 2x
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
That is absolutely disgusting. That poor woman. I hope whoever did this can be found and punished accordingly. As I have written on here, I sympathise greatly with the Palestinians, but there is no excuse whatsoever for antisemitism. I wish these idiots could understand that they are doing their cause no good at all with this kind of despicable behaviour. Utter morons.
They have no cause. Don't give them the crumb of a cause.
The Palestinians certainly have a cause, but antisemitic behaviour by idiots is certainly not going to win any sympathy for it.
I am no fan of Boris, but he isn't an MP anymore so what's it to us, the public, what jobs he gets? I don't watch GB News, but nobody is forcing anybody to watch it or pay for it via a telly tax.
True. And I wonder if the assumption that he's totally written off isn't premature. We'll see what his evidence says, but more importantly, he's keeping in the news, which automatically makes him still relevant - and perhaps with a post-election future.
I think he remains a fairly influential onlooker in the same mould as Blair, Farage, Heseltine, Corbyn, Heath etc.
I'm not sure Ted remains an influential onlooker ?
Not now for obvious reasons but he did throughout Thatcher's tenure.
Heath certainly tried to stay in political relevance - his hatred of Thatcher slowly mutated into a hatred of the voters who refused to acknowledge that he (Ted Heath) was right. By the 90s he was openly praising the Chinese government - chiefly for not listening to The People on Important Decisions.
Boris dropped straight back into journalism - with rather a low political content. He certainly isn't trying to challenge the leadership of the Conservative Party in any meaningful way.
I don't know if you've read 'Agent Lavender', an Alt-History about what if Harold Wilson really was a Soviet spy, but Heath features large in that TL.
He makes his comeback in a big way as after Wilson runs off to the Soviets, Labour are 'banned' (for a bit) and Thatcher replaced as she isn't up to it. In steps Ted, and whilst its been a while, the author perfectly captures Heath's glee at being Prime Minister again.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
That is absolutely disgusting. That poor woman. I hope whoever did this can be found and punished accordingly. As I have written on here, I sympathise greatly with the Palestinians, but there is no excuse whatsoever for antisemitism. I wish these idiots could understand that they are doing their cause no good at all with this kind of despicable behaviour. Utter morons.
They have no cause. Don't give them the crumb of a cause.
I'd bet that before a few weeks ago most to these characters (to paraphrase Steven Berkoff) didn't know Palestine from Leigh-on-Sea.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
I can direct you to a kid in Ealing who was attacked for being dressed like an 18th Cent. German farmer.....
IIRC anti-semitic incidents are up 15x, anti-muslim incidents 2x
What's the betting that other racism is also up?
There are a lot of sick people around who, it seems, will use any kind of pretext to harass others. Especially minorities.
This, in part, explains why I have been so aggrieved around the discourse surrounding Israel / Palestine - because those who rightly decry the brutality and inhumanity of Hamas' attack on October 7th are incapable of seeing that that attack has a cause (as in "and effect"), and part of that cause is the brutality and inhumanity of how the state of Israel treats Palestinians.
If you were around in the 1930s you'd have been saying, "Look at what we've made the Germans do now!"
If you mean Versailles and Western Imperialism in general - somewhat - but that still wouldn't justify land invasion (although might have justified calls to end the occupation of the Rhineland, for example).
If you mean the Nazism and the Holocaust, of course not. Jewish people were in no way the "cause (as in "and effect)" of any of the wrongs done to post WW1 Germany, nor were the other targets of Nazi violence. Jewish people are also in no way the "cause (as in "and effect") of the Israel / Palestine conflict - because Israel is not a proxy for Jewish people - as I will keep pointing out to everyone who uses it as such. As I have said before, it is just as anti-Semitic to claim Israel is somehow a proxy for all Jewish people, or somehow represents all Jewish people as it is to claim that all Jewish people have "dual loyalty"; because its root is the same trope.
And yet, yesterday one of my son’s teachers woke up to find human faeces put through her letterbox, wrapped in paper with the message ‘eat shit dirty Jew’ and a swastika.
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
That is absolutely disgusting. That poor woman. I hope whoever did this can be found and punished accordingly. As I have written on here, I sympathise greatly with the Palestinians, but there is no excuse whatsoever for antisemitism. I wish these idiots could understand that they are doing their cause no good at all with this kind of despicable behaviour. Utter morons.
They have no cause. Don't give them the crumb of a cause.
The Palestinians certainly have a cause, but antisemitic behaviour by idiots is certainly not going to win any sympathy for it.
One would hope that the murderous barbarity of 7th October wouldn't either.
Incidentally, if the Germans join GCAD, it'll be a German/Swedish/Japanese/Italian program with British support. Color me stupid, but historically when the Germans, Swedes, Japanese and Italians join in a military project it doesn't always go as planned.
I am surprised that there are so few comments on PB in relation to the Covid inquiry? Is that because it is embarrassing for PB Tories?
One point that does strike me when reading the blog is that the outrageous and ridiculous stuff is being (perfectly understandably) picked out by the media, and there's a mass of perfectly sensible discussion in level-headed terms as everyone gropes for the best way through. I don't think Boris is coming out of it well, but the general impression of total chaos of everyone involved is probably exaggerated.
The shocking thing today was the Deputy Cabinet Secretary staring into the abyss when she realised there was no plan.
Also very interesting was her point about leaders clinging to 'following the science' as a way to avoid having to think too much about all the other stuff.
Has Hunt been asked yet why there was no plan?
I kept a Swine Flu leaflet which oddly enough turned up yesterday during some tidying. In it, it details the government's advice (including the non-use of masks, interestingly) and the overall plan.
I think the problem was not that they didn't have a plan, it was that they had a plan for the wrong pandemic.
Wasn't there talk at the time that the UK's model was for a Really Bad Flu Year?
Had that been the case (herd immunity by infection for about 50000 deaths), then letting it wash over might have been unpleasant but rational.
Comments
I am not saying everything happens as a function of the actions of the Israeli state. Hamas has some, limited, agency. Most Palestinians, I would argue, do not. Most individual Israelis, I would suggest, have only slightly more than their Palestinian neighbours - but that slight allows them to steal Palestinian houses and land, and commit mob violence against Palestinian businesses and places of worship (but not to protest their governments actions against Palestinians). The state of Israel has a lot of agency, especially in the region, but the US has more, for example. The UK used to have a lot more, but in modern times has a lot less.
And you cannot conceive, cannot allow that some of their ideology, some of their political thought, is because of the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza by the state of Israel - and that the state of Israel is unjust in its treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
And how can his actions be considered non-sensible? He didn't tell the public to rush to their hairdryers, he sent it to the 'experts' to check out. That seems exactly what he should have done.
(The great 1918 flu epidemic drew astonishingly little coverage in the US, after it ended, even from professional historians.)
I also don't know how to take many of the responses as particularly sincere given my positions over the last few weeks.
You judge me as insincere; fair enough, You are wrong, though.
Look at it this way, just as you cant understand the paradoxes in their head, they can't understand the paradoxes in your head. That is because we are human, complex and not entirely logically consistent in our beliefs. Not because we dont care or are feeling a bit genocidal this afternoon.
Quite a lot of people argued that my not giving ethnic self determination to all the German populations of the countries of Europe was Not Nice and The Cause Of The Next War.
But this wasn't really about Versailles as such - it was about how the map of Europe had ended up after the war and the breaking of the Austro-Hungarian empire (among other things). Instead of giving all the German ethnic populations to Germany, they were part of various countries.
Certainly Hitler used it as his cause for war - he wasn't going to war with the Jews. Officially that is.
And the German populations of the various countries *were* being treated as second class citizens - though not 1% of how badly Germany then treated conquered populations.
I think it would need international oversight, I think it would need international cooperation and I think it would need a great deal of international bureaucracy. It would also require significant political will to not allow it to fail. Something akin to the Nuremburg trials and the occupation of East and West Germany, with troops from a coalition of countries assuring the safety of Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians. Hell, akin to the Balfour Declaration and the partitioning of land, except with this time understanding that you cannot impose a solution only one side signed up to. It would mean involving Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and, potentially, even Iranian politicians. These are doable things, it would just take work - and a degree of work that certain states (namely Israel and the US) have hitherto refused to do. It would lead to the trials of Israeli politicians, I'm sure, as well as Hamas terrorists. That is what is required.
Yes, this is near utopian (although I don't think it is impossible). But compared to the current position of "let Israel kill all Palestinians if they want to" I think it is significantly preferable.
Yes we should be encouraged to think outside the box. It can produce great results. It is however not recommended that the likes of Boris and Trump bombard their scientists (who were under severe pressure) with videos posted by loons on the internet.
Next suggestions: Email NASA with youtube videos on how to land on the sun. Maybe Trump did that when president and I'm guessing you think that is a good idea?
In 1941, if you wished the German people well, especially women and children, you would have wanted the Nazi government destroyed.
In 1960, if you wished the Chinese people well, especially women and children, you would have wanted Mao's government destroyed.
In 1977, if you wished the Cambodian people well, especially women and children, you would have wanted the Khmer Rouge destroyed - as they were by the Vietnamese army in 1979.
In 2023, if you wish Gazans well, especially women and children, you should . . .
(Some keep harping on the argument that Netenyahu helped Hamas at some point. I don't know the details, so won't say more than this: If that is true, at the very least the Hamas leadership was stupid in accepting his help, rather than making peace with the PLO.
Assuming they care about the well being of Gazans, for which the evidence is slight.)
I fear there's not going to be much enlightenment.
Pretty weird when you think about it......
One can, of course, critique the Treaty of Versailles without in any way condoning the Nazis.
We have seen it in this conflict - the description of Palestinians as "human animals", that "if they want hell, we will make it hell", the thousands of civilians killed and tens of thousands displaced in indiscriminate bombings of Gazan land that has no proven link to Hamas outside of the fact it is in Gaza. Again, Israeli ministers have said they plan to make Gaza a place where "no human can exist" - something that works with their actions. If they were talking tough and acting more humanely, I'd be willing to put it down to politics - but they are following words of genocide with actions of genocide; and the talking point from Biden is no talk of ceasefire, Israel needs to be allowed to do this.
These sorts of gusts are much more damaging when trees still have their foliage than later in the year when they’re bare. Saturated ground also makes tree falls more likely.
A very coastal affair though. The midlands in particular will hardly see a breeze. “Eye of the storm”. Worst hit likely to be the Channel Islands. St Helier also expecting the highest storm tide: 1.5m.
I think they are few in number. This One Nation Burkean Tory is voting Labour as the nearest thing available to my principles.
For example, Britain is in theory one of the better places to be an ethnic or religious minority - but Jewish schools and synagogues require security. Scenes on US campuses have been horrifying. Jewish communities in many Arab, North African states and Iran have all but disappeared- with most of those countries either run by thuggish dictators or theocratic zealots who have turned on Jews the moment they could. Venezuela has seen mass emigration by Jews because of its far left government's antisemitism. In fact, pretty much anywhere with a horrid regime, Jews will find themselves on the wrong end of it.
It's simple self-preservation for most to want a homeland where Jews are in the majority and thus keeping them safe. One born of bitter experience, that even in countries where you are perfectly assimilated could turn on you one day. And of course most countries are not liberal democracies that uphold human rights. You only have to look at how Jews are treated across the Middle East to see that the creation of a one state would be a gamble many Israelis simply could not take.
It's just not a serious suggestion when you get remotely below the surface of what it would mean and the dangers involved.
The best hope for peace may well be what might be called a three state one - Gaza prospers as a microstate tourist destination - independent of, but linked to Egypt. Settlers are given a choice between leaving the WB or living under Palestinian rule in the West Bank, with Jerusalem as a free city with shared sovereignty. But that would rely on a brave Israeli government and Palestinian leaders getting their act together instead of wallowing in the thuggish extremism that Israel provides a convenient excuse for and Iran funds and stirs.
As an overture to a potential deal, the German chancellor is also understood to be in talks over lifting Berlin’s veto on a delivery of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, which the UK views as an important strategic priority.
A pact along these lines would be a significant coup for London and reflect a steadily worsening rift between France and Germany, which are at odds over issues from energy and air defence to diplomatic protocol."
Macron will be le grumpy again if this transpires.
Red warning for Kent and possibly Sussex likely?
Cornwall probably has a higher threshold for red warnings that given strong winds are a more common occurrence.
Still showing 90kt gusts for the Channel Islands and northern France, which really is quite extreme.
So what?
Does the fact that some Arabs dislike Jews - just as the converse is true - justify the indiscriminate killing of Arab civilians?
If that attitude represents the intellectual fruit of several thousand years of human civilisation, maybe the sooner the machines take over the better.
Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
Scottish Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 38% (+6)
SNP: 32% (-1)
CON: 16% (-4)
LDM: 5% (=)
Via
@YouGov
, 20-25 Oct.
Changes w/ 2-6 Oct.
Harry Cole is a dolt, but every dog has his day. I found myself in rare agreement with him today when he said (I paraphrase): "The inquiry seems to be less about the quality of the decisions made, but about the process behind how those decisions were arrived at."
That seemed to me to be an apt critique: that Cummings is a boorish pig is hardly news; that Bozzatron is an irresponsible clown is similarly unsurprising.
So what is the inquiry for?
Is Chris Whitty going to be asked why he ignored the (correct) advice of the entire South African medical profession and deliberately brought hospitality to its knees with his comments at Christmas 2021?
Also very interesting was her point about leaders clinging to 'following the science' as a way to avoid having to think too much about all the other stuff.
I wish he had been a lot more determined and a lot better supported by those around him. Both of which are largely his fault of course.
"What's that, Mr Flibble? Are the French deliberately buggering up an international cooperative defense project?"
(The hand nods)
"What, again?"
(nods)
"For the thousandth time????"
(nods frantically)
There is a simple solution.
The U.K. puts in an initial order for the new fighter of 15,000.
When it comes to actually buying them, it’s a few hundred. Then demand we keep our work share.
Name any famous corporate failure, for example, and there is no doubt that 95%+ of what was going on was basically people getting on with their respective jobs in a pretty normal way. But if the dysfunction is senior enough, pivotal at key moments, and not subject to the checks provided by a robust decision making process, all that good work is for nothing.
An issue for the Inquiry is whether the examples of dysfunction (which few other than the usual swivel-eyed loons on this site would seriously dispute were pretty ugly) were isolated incidents or whether they went unchecked and materially influenced the broader course of events. If so, it's how best to manage that through strengthening processes - noting that many key figures are no longer frontline figures and have headed off into showbiz or whatever else.
He makes his comeback in a big way as after Wilson runs off to the Soviets, Labour are 'banned' (for a bit) and Thatcher replaced as she isn't up to it. In steps Ted, and whilst its been a while, the author perfectly captures Heath's glee at being Prime Minister again.
The ending is shite though.
https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/book-nook-agent-lavender-by-tom-black-and-jack-tindale
I want answers about decisions and science and models and planning more than I want to know that the Thick of It was far too tame compared to the ship of fools that was running the government.
Just try to explain your argument in a similar way to the poster you were responding to.
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/28/risky-behavior-good-sunny-weather/
For example, in the US more lottery tickets are sold when the weather is "unexpectedly nice".
(Serious bettors may want to look at the research for themselves.)
A record for London? Still unlikely, but it won't be far off.
(Ok, Yes Minister was on last night)
This is a women in her 20s, living alone. It’s not been like this for most British Jews in living memory. I have several other examples of the sorts of antisemitic abuse people (always women) have faced. The fear people are feeling is real and borne out actual stuff happening like this.
- The French thing the Germans are leaving: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Air_System
- The British thing the Germans are thinking of joining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Air_Programme
Incidentally, if the Germans join GCAD, it'll be a German/Swedish/Japanese/Italian program with British support. Color me stupid, but historically when the Germans, Swedes, Japanese and Italians join in a military project it doesn't always go as planned.Given the propensity of the British to name their fighters after wind/storms (Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest, Whirlwind, and of course Hurricane), we may end up calling it the RAF Divine Wind...
Programme.
The spillover from Brexit hubris and the delusional “ we are special “ seems to have led to more bad decisions .
Anyone still thinking the lying oaf would have a better chance than Sunak at the next GE needs to stop drinking the Kool aid .
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/agent-lavender-the-flight-of-harold-wilson.261475/post-9930489
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/agent-lavender-the-flight-of-harold-wilson.261475/post-9943202
Plus as Empires broke up in the first two-thirds of the 20th Century it was hardy unusual for fairly drastic population changes and exchanges to take place as new states were created based upon the principles of national self-determination.
Finally, other than a few extremists, Israel had no desire to rule over Palestinians or the whole of the Holy Land. It was the Arab countries who rejected the initial partition plans and went to war - and lost. While their leaders (as opposed to people) are far from blameless given the then Grand Mufti's links to Nazism. It just doesn't fit that easy narrative.
I think the problem was not that they didn't have a plan, it was that they had a plan for the wrong pandemic.
It cannot be allowed to flourish. It is toxic
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/olaf-scholzs-coalition-partners-call-for-rwanda-style-immigration-centre-vcptjd6pm
FDP apparently.
5% lead with other Parties staying the same gives a Labour majority of 2.
Also. With a dead heat in votes, the Tories would now have only 5 more seats than Labour.
Cons would need a 3% lead for their own majority of 2.
Had that been the case (herd immunity by infection for about 50000 deaths), then letting it wash over might have been unpleasant but rational.
But it was about ten times that.
At what point does the government develop a backbone and start arresting these people. They are on video, recorded, openly stating this stuff
They aren’t hiding away
For some reason (can’t think why) they have acquired the sense they are immune from British laws and British norms. It is time to tell them this is not the case
IIRC anti-semitic incidents are up 15x, anti-muslim incidents 2x
What's the betting that other racism is also up?
It happened to Lenny Henry years back - he made a whole routine about imagining how they imagined the logistics of it.
If you've got 15 days to read it, the government review of the 2009 flu pandemic is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7975f1ed915d0422068a10/the2009influenzapandemic-review.pdf